Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Bank of England (Nationalisation) Bill,

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Dover Harbour, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
2. "That, in the case of the Shoreham Harbour, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
3. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 123 in the case of the Petition of 'Norman Hyam Aaron,' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with.

Resolutions agreed to.

PRISONERS (ROYAL PREROGATIVE).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to present to the House a Petition which has been signed by about 300,000 citizens of Great Britain, including 100 Members of this honourable House and men and women of all political persuasions, drawing the attention of the House to the miners and the members of the Communist party who are held in prison, and praying this House to ask His Majesty to be good enough to use his Prerogative, and to release them
from prison. The same Petition has been further supported by a few dozen telegrams this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (ADMISSION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Captain FAIRFAX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, to obviate detention of British subjects at Ellis Island, he will negotiate with the United States of America to secure that their Consuls' visas granted here should be a final authority for British subjects to enter the United States unless some offence is committed or infectious disease discovered after the granting of the visa; and, failing a satisfactory arrangement, if he will consult with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the expediency of instituting suitable reprisals?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir AUSTEN Chamberlain): Under the law both of the United States and this country, the decision whether an alien shall or shall not be allowed to land rests with the immigration authorities in the country of landing and it is not possible, therefore, to consider the suggestion contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Captain FAIRFAX: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot take any steps to get better facilities for business men going to the United States?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In these cases, does the right hon. Gentleman or his representative accede to a request for assistance by these unfortunate people if he is asked to intervene?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Consular authorities will at any time give such assistance as it is proper for them to give in any case where a British citizen is in trouble or distress.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has a general instruction been given to that effect, irrespective of the rank of the person?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the ordinary duty of the Consular authorities.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Are we going to treat persons coming from America on the same lines as the Americans treat people coming from here?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is another question on that subject.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Cannot we leave this subject to the American public and Press, who seem to be able to deal with it very effectively?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do the Government take any official action in regard to cases like this?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not know exactly upon what the two hon. Gentlemen are basing their questions. If it be upon a statement by the lady in question, that she had communicated with me and received an answer from me, my answer was that the Consular authorities would give her any assistance that was proper, and in their power to give.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the cause of all this complaint is due to the fact that the American Government treat rich and poor alike?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the event of the Consular representations proving inadequate, are the Government prepared to give any assistance to British citizens in cases such as this?

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the character of the immigration laws of the United States of America under which a law-abiding British subject has been detained at Ellis Island, and another British citizen under a threat of similar treatment has fled to Canada; and will he, under these circumstances, consider the advisability of conferring with the American authorities with the view of making these Regulations reciprocal?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part is in the negative.

Sir N. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even His Majesty's Privy Councillors are not able to get a visa to go to the United States, unless they have a supporting letter from a banker, and is this not a matter that might be inquired into?

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it quite certain that the person referred to in the question was a law-abiding person?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it possible for us to keep people out of this country on the ground of moral turpitude? Has the right hon. Gentleman no power?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This country has the power to exclude any alien if it wishes to do so. The particular offence charged in this case is classed differently, as I understand, in American law from what is classed with us, and, after all, I do not think we can wisely undertake to dictate, even by questions in this House, to the people of the United States how they shall administer their own laws or what those laws should be.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Cannot we suggest to the American Government that the same treatment should be meted out to their citizens as is meted out to ours?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We can administer our laws as we please, and we can make our laws what we think it is right that they should be, but that is an entirely different question.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as I am sure he will, that in the depressed state of the shipping industry it would be wrong to do anything to prevent the influx of American citizens?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that if this had been an ordinary member of society, instead of one of the aristocracy of this country, there would have been no question put in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be responsible for the questions which Members ask.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN PLANTATION SYNDICATE (PROFIT-SHARING).

Mr. SCURR: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a system of profit-sharing has been put into operation by the Sudan Plantation Syndicate and whether the native share of such proceeds is paid to the chiefs or to the actual workers in connection with the cotton-growing farms?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Under the terms of the syndicate's concession, 40 per cent. of the proceeds realised by the sale of the cotton crop is paid to the actual tenant cultivators.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire what steps he is taking to improve the relations between this country and Russia; and whether he is now prepared to enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of outstanding questions between Great Britain and Russia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 9th December of last year, and to that given to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Bryant) on the 10th February, 1926.

Mr. TAYLOR: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing since previous questions on this subject?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have done nothing since the date of those questions.

CONCESSIONS, BRITISH COMPANIES.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many concessions have been given by the Soviet Government to British companies that were in existence before 1920, beyond that granted to Lena Goldfields; and whether the giving of any such concessions involves any restitution of confiscated property to the original owners?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As far as I am aware, the only concessions granted to any British companies, which were in existence prior to 1920, other than the
Lena Goldfields, are those given to the Ayan Corporation and the Priamur Syndicate. My information is that such concessions are granted for a term of years, at the end of which the enterprises must be handed over to the Soviet Government in working order.

ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Sir F. HALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report on Foreign Affairs, by M. Zinovieff, at the opening recently of the Communist International Conference, in which he urged the intensification of Communist activities in this country, with the object of promoting the revolutionary overthrow of the present constitutional system of government; whether the adoption of this attitude on the part of a leading representative of the Union of Soviet Republics is accepted by the Government as in accord with the obligation accepted by Russia in the Trading Agreement with this country; and, if not, whether it is intended to make official representations on the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the report which has appeared in our own Press of M. Zinovieff's speech. I do not gather that his animosity to the existing organisation of society in this country is any stronger than his dislike of the conditions prevailing in all other civilised communities, nor can I bring myself readily to believe that our people afford a favourable field for propaganda of this character. I do not propose to make any representations to the Soviet Government on this speech. Any measures which are thought necessary for the protection of society here will, of course, be taken by the competent authorities.

Sir F. HALL: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman not been drawn to the fact that this country and China were singled out as the two countries in which the propaganda might be utilised for the benefit of Socialism and Communism?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, is it not the case that there are certain individuals in this House who fear that if anything is done in regard to Russia they will lose their hunters?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has seen a briefer report than the one I have myself
read. Although there was special attention drawn to them, this country and China were not the only countries mentioned in the report I saw. I think we can defend ourselves, and our own community, and we need not attach undue importance to utterances of this kind, though as a contributing factor in international relations they must be considered.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the danger of the large credits which are available to the Soviet Government under the Trading Agreement, and which can be used for subversive propaganda in this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what large credits are available to the Soviet Government under the Trading Agreement.

Mr. J. HUDSON: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no ground in this country for the carrying on of this propaganda, will he make suitable representations to the Home Secretary?

WIRELESS RECEIVING SETS, FRANCE.

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the difficulty being experienced by British residents in France in procuring licences for wireless receiving sets; and, in view of the desire of many such residents to keep in touch with English events, will he make representation to the French Government in order to bring about some modification of their existing Regulations as affecting English residents desiring licences?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Having no information on the subject, I made inquiries of His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, who reports that, although no formal complaints have been received, the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member do in fact exist. I will see that the matter is taken up with the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

BRITISH EMBASSY.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantage there is to this country
in retaining the British Embassy in Constantinople while the seat of government of the Turkish Republic is at Angora; and whether there is any intention of removing the British Embassy to Angora?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no present intention of abandoning the Embassy at Constantinople. The absence of accommodation and the general conditions of life at Angora make that at present impossible.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not a fact that Turkey is the only country in the world to keep an Ambassador in a town which is not the caiptal?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the circumstances are exactly reproduced anywhere else, but, as I stated the other day, the Ambassador makes frequent visits to Angora, and I think the First Secretary of the Embassy will shortly proceed there.

Mr. YOUNG: Have the Turkish Government made any request that the Ambassador should be at Angora?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think before I answer a question of that kind I had better refresh my memory as to what has taken place.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of sending to Angora one of Lord Weir's houses?

BRITISH COTTON YARNS (TRADE MARK).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware, in the case of an infringement of a trade mark in Turkey, that the British firm whose trade mark has been infringed has been condemned by the Turkish Courts on account of non-domicile in Turkey; that this decision is a breach of the Industrial Property Convention to which Turkey adhered as from 10th October, 1925; that the attention of the Foreign Office has been drawn to this matter at intervals spread over 12 months; that since this time the export of certain varieties of British cotton yarns to Turkey has been and continues to be seriously curtailed, with consequent financial loss to the country; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this injury to British commercial interests?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The statement of the case regarding the particular British firm to which I presume the question refers is, in the main, accurate. The decision in question was given by a Turkish Court of First Instance, and I understand that steps are being taken to appeal against it. In these circumstances diplomatic action would at present be premature, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and His Majesty's Consul-General at Smyrna are in close touch with the local representative of the firm, and may be relied on to take any proper measures to safeguard its interests in this matter.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable losses have occurred, amounting to thousands of pounds, due to the infringement of this valuable safeguard; is he aware that these losses are occurring day by day, and have been continuing for the past 12 months; does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has now arrived that definite action should be taken; and is it not a fact that the matter is not only one of importance to the cotton trade, but to other trades as well?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

GREAT POWERS (INTERVENTION).

Mr. CLUSE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any conference by cable between London, Washington, Paris, Tokyo and Home with regard to a suggestion for armed intervention in China; and, if so, with what result?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

LOANS (DEFAULT).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the external loans placed in Britain of the Chinese Government that are in default?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following are the loans in default:

Canton-Kowloon Railway Loan, 1907.
Tientsin-Pukow Railway Loan, 1908.
Tientsin-Pukow Railway Supplementary Loan, 1910.
Hukuang Railways Loan, 1911.
Shanghai-Fengching Railway Mortgage Redemption Loan, 1914.
496
8 per Cent. Sterling Treasury Notes (Vickers Loan).
8 per Cent. Treasury Notes (Marconi Loan).

BRITISH SCHOONER "EASTWOOD."

Captain FAIRFAX: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received of the circumstances in which the British schooner "Eastwood" was bombarded off the New Jersey coast by the United States cutter "Seneca"; and whether he has taken, or will take, any action to ensure respect for British merchant shipping?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I have requested His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to make inquiries of the United States Government and to furnish me with a Report.

Captain FAIRFAX: Does the right hon. Gentleman's information in this matter point to the British vessel being engaged in any illicit trading?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press, from which it would appear that the vessel was engaged in rum running.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman keep in recollection in these negotiations what the "Alabama" incident cost this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot see any connection between the two.

MOSUL VILAYET.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the proposals made by the Turkish Government to His Majesty's Government in March of last year for a peaceful settlement of the Mosul question, it was stated how much of the vilayet of Mosul would satisfy the Turkish demands; whether any particular British company was mentioned by the Turkish Government as being acceptable for the development of the oil resources of the territory in question or whether His Majesty's Government were offered a free
hand in this matter; whether the Iraq Government was consulted with reference to these offers from the Turkish Government; and, if so, what was their reply?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, approximately two-thirds of the Mosul Vilayet were to be returned to Turkey. I abstain from giving the actual geographical description of the proposed frontier as it consists of a long list of names only to be found on a large scale map. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is that the exploitation of oil was to be granted to an English group to be approved by the British Government. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.

HUNGARY (NOTE FORGERIES).

Mr. PONSONBY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the forgery of notes in Hungary has been the subject of communications between the Foreign Office and any foreign Government; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of bringing, or agreeing to bring, the subject under the notice of the League of Nations on account of the bearing it has upon the financial relations between the Hungarian Government and the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As in the case of most questions affecting international relations, the matter has been the subject of discussions with the representatives of the countries directly concerned. At present I see no reason for action of the kind suggested in the latter part of the question.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL).

Mr. PONSONBY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet inform this House of the attitude he has been instructed to adopt at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on, the subject of a further increase of the permanent membership of the Council beyond the admission of Germany?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have not as yet decided their course of action.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is it not the fact that the extraordinary Session of the Council of the League of Nations was called to deal exclusively with the question of the admission of Germany?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; that is not the fact.

COMMERCIAL TEAVELLERS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES' FEES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which foreign countries make a practice of charging British commercial travellers fees for doing business in their respective lands; what is the amount of the fees charged and how long they have been in operation; and, seeing that no fee is charged to foreign commercial travellers visiting Great Britain, will he cause representations to be made with a view of obtaining reciprocity in these matters?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The first two parts of the question can hardly be dealt with within the scope of a Parliamentary answer; and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will send him a statement giving him the desired information. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think that representations by His Majesty's Government on the ground suggested would induce other Governments to forego taxes on British travellers, which are imposed on foreign travellers generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ENCHANTRESS."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the annual cost of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" when paid off and in order to keep her efficient; what is her monthly cost when commissioned; whether it is proposed to commission her this year; and, if so, for what purpose?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The annual cost of upkeep of His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" on a care and maintenance basis is £6,493, but of this figure £4,833 represents expenditure on the pay, allowances, etc., of naval personnel provided for war services, who are made use of in peace to look after the vessel. The net ex-
penditure directly due to the maintenance of this ship is therefore £1,660 per annum. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" is now practically never commissioned for so long as a month at one time, and it is hardly feasible, therefore, to give the figures asked for. The extra cost involved in commissioning the ship amounts to the differences in allowances for certain officers, consumption of stores, electric light, etc., His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" was recently commissioned on the occasion of the Board inspection of the naval establishment at Portsmouth; she has since paid off, and nothing has as yet been arranged for her use during the rest of the year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the limited use made of this vessel, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of getting rid of it altogether as a matter of economy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am always ready to consider any offer that may be made.

SUBMARINE (SAFETY DEVICES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any new and improved device whereby a submarine may make its position known in the event of its being sunk has been fitted to submarines since the loss of the M1; and whether experiments have been made with any new device?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. No device has yet been invented which improves upon the existing arrangements of which I gave some particulars to the hon. and gallant Member in my reply of 19th November last.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Since that date have no experiments whatever been made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have made our own experiments on suggestions made to us; other suggestions have either been considered before or are not considered of sufficient value to go to the expense of experiments.

HOUSING, DEVONPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the housing conditions in the
town of Devonport; and whether his Department has any policy in contemplation for the proper accommodation of their own employes, particularly those who are arriving from Rosyth with furniture which, owing to the shortage of houses, they will be obliged to store?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The Admiralty are aware of the housing situation at Devonport. The men transferred from Rosyth and Pembroke to Devonport will have to make their own arrangements regarding accommodation, and if they are unable to obtain houses will, no doubt, go into lodgings and store their furniture. The Admiralty will, however, pay allowances on account of the additional expense to which such men are put.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion the First Lord stated that the Admiralty would have regard to the housing accommodation before sending the men there, and he appears to be going back on that? Consequently there is a great deal of misery being caused to the population?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid I cannot accept that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people being transferred from Rosyth find it impossible, because of the size of their families, to get proper lodgings; and what steps are the Admiralty taking in this matter of securing housing accommodation for the sake of the children?

Colonel DAY: Would the hon. Gentleman consider erecting some of the Weir houses down there?

OUT-STATION EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. KELLY: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of people employed by the Admiralty at Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Simonstown, Bermuda, and Trincomali in January, 1924, January, 1925, and January, 1926?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether there has been an increase or a decrease?

Mr. DAVIDSON: If the hon. Member were in any way influenced by the closing would like to know that examines the figures, he will see there has been both.

Mr. KELLY: I now.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these figures

Date.
Malta.
Gibraltar.
Hong Kong.
Cape.
Bermuda.
Trincomali.


January, 1924
…
…
6,200
1,831
2,650
658
741
305*










 (July, 1924)


January, 1925
…
…
8,170
1,980
2,759
547
762
765


January, 1926
…
…
8,327
2,008
1,908
227
779*
429









(Oct., 1925)



*Nearest available date.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the evidence taken by and the report of the court of inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire" has been published?

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the late Lord Long in 1920 invited Sir George Arthur to read a secret or unpublished report on the sinking of the "Hampshire" on the understanding that he would not divulge a word of it to anybody, and that under such conditions Sir George Arthur declined to accept Lord Long's invitation; whether the secret report referred to is now in the possession of the Admiralty; and whether there is any objection from the point of view of public interest to its publication?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together.
As has been previously stated on many occasions in answer to similar questions in this House, there are valid objections to the publication of the reports of Naval Courts of Inquiry, which is the nature of the document in question. That the then First Lord offered in 1920 to show the report in confidence to Lord Kitchener's former secretary is, I believe, a fact, but it does not detract from the importance attached to the inviolability of such reports.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has

were in any way influenced by the closing of the dockyards at Rosyth and Pembroke, and whether any men are being given offers of employment at these other places?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should require notice of that.

Following are the figures promised:

given is directly contradictory to one which was given last week, in which it was said the Admiralty had published all the information at their disposal? Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, will he further consider the publication of the information at their disposal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With regard to the publication of the report of the court of inquiry, I do not think I can do better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st April, 1919, when Mr. Bottomley asked a similar question and it was answered by Dr. Macnamara, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I cannot improve upon the answer he gave as to the reasons for not publishing the report of the court of inquiry. With regard to the question of any discrepancy between this answer and one given previously, I am unable to see that there can be any. What was said before was that the information at our disposal, which arose partly from the report of the court of inquiry, had been given to the public. It was never stated that the evidence or the full report had been published.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is not the evidence part of the information at the disposal of the Admiralty?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have given the information at our disposal, but we did not publish the report of the court of inquiry.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the case, as stated explicitly by the writer of the
articles that are causing these questions, that he has been approached in the House of Commons by an emissary of the Government, making the same offer of showing the document, but under the strict condition that he would not make it public, and that he has stated that he will certainly make public everything that he knows?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, Sir, I should be very sorry to be responsible for what the writer of those articles has stated, but I am not aware that he even said he had been offered that opportunity.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I will be able to show it to you.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I rather think the hon. Gentleman is confusing him with Sir George Arthur, who is quoted in the article in question, and who is the person referred to in this answer. I have not had any application from anybody to look at the report.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is not a question of an application by the writer of the article. I am asking, is it not the case that an emissary of the Government approached the writer of the articles offering to show this document on the strict condition that publication would not be made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, he certainly never had my permission to do so. If anybody did it, I never heard of it before, and I certainly should not have given my permission.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the economies which have been made in the strength of the Fleet, it is still proposed to continue the expenditure at Singapore?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

ROYAL NAVAL BENEVOLENT TRUST.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any substantial expenditure falls upon the taxpayers in respect of the newly-formed Royal Naval Benevolent Trust?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, Sir; but I may point out that the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust is only one of many
items which have been added to the administrative work of the Admiralty in recent years.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Might I ask, in that case, whether there are no costs of administration?

Mr. DAVIDSON: My information is that there are practically none.

STORES (STANDARDISATION).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will confer with technical experts in his Department in regard to the existing 76,000 items of stores compared with the number of 33,000 items in 1914, with a view to the adoption of such an amount of standardisation as would reduce the present figure?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The question of standardisation is always borne in mind when considering the introduction of new patterns of stores into the Admiralty service, with a view to reducing as much as possible the number of different descriptions of stores maintained in stock. The increase in the number of items of stores as compared with that in 1914 is due to the development of additional technical and scientific equipment, and the manifold needs of the modern war vessel of every type in the present-day fleets.

SALT PORK RATION.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the salt pork and pea soup ration of naval ratings has been abolished; whether he is aware that on the occasions when this ration was issued to the men it was appreciated as a welcome change of diet; and, seeing that naval ratings do not wish the ration abolished or restricted, will he say on whose advice the rations are to be discontinued, and if the lower deck was consulted?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The removal of salt pork from Navy rations is a natural result of the increased facilities which exist, under present-day conditions, for the issue of fresh and frozen meat; and on the rare occasions on which recourse is necessary to substitutes, tinned meats, both on grounds of economy and palatability, are to be preferred. The opinions obtained from the Fleet, both at home and abroad, were overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing the salt pork ration.

Sir B. FALLE: Did those opinions come from the ower deck or from the officers? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men prefer salt pork, and especially the pea-soup ration?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Our information is entirely in the contrary sense.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say what economies have been effected by these changes in the diet?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is not an economy, but it is a much pleasanter food for the sailors.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Sir B. FALLE: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to state the number of naval ratings who were invalided during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1925, with tuberculosis; and how many of the cases were considered to be attributable to service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The total number of ratings invalided for tuberculosis in 1925 was 217; of these, three were found to be attributable to the Service.

ENGINEER LIEUTENANTS.

Sir B. FALLE: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of engineer lieutenant-commanders and engineer lieutenants borne in His Majesty's Navy; and how many of these officers served as engine-room artificers before promotion to warrant or commissioned rank?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The numbers are: 55 engineer lieut.-commanders and 172 engineer-lieutenants, of whom 42 and 169, respectively, served as engine-room artificers before promotion to warrant or commissioned rank.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STANDARD BENEFIT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any Regulations have been issued prohibiting the payment of standard benefit to single men and women under 25 years of age living with their parents, and to men whose wives are working or to wives whose husbands are working; and, if so, whether he will have copies of the Regulations placed in the Library for the information of Members?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): No such Regulations have been issued. The hon. Member, perhaps, has in mind the rules in L.E.C. 82/17 issued last August, but these apply only to extended benefit.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on State-aided schemes of work during the week ending the 13th February, 1926; and the number so employed for the same period last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Returns of men engaged on State-aided schemes of work are received monthly. The number of men employed on the 30th January, 1926, was 104,953, and on the 31st January, 1925, was 109,399. These figures take no account of the employment provided indirectly, e.g., in the preparation and transport of materials.

EXTENDED BENEFIT CLAIMS (LINCOLN).

Mr. TAYLOR: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefit have been made at the Lincoln Employment Exchange since the 1st October, 1925; the number of such claims that have been refused; the number that have been granted; and the number under consideration at the latest convenient date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local employment committee at Lincoln between 13th October, 1925, and 8th February, 1926, was 2,070, of which 1,824 were allowed, 221 were recommended for disallowance, and 25 were postponed for a definite period. At 8th February 75 cases were awaiting consideration. Figures relating to the period 1st to 12th October are not available.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any encouragement, or otherwise, is given to agricultural workers to take employment in the subsidised sugar-beet factories?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that in order to avoid dislocation of the farming industry, on which the
supply of beet depends, certain of the factories do not engage for their seasonal work agricultural labourers who are in permanent employment. Otherwise I am not aware that there is any encouragement or discouragement of the engagement of agricultural workers at these factories.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has no influence at all with these employers who attempt to differentiate between two classes of workers in the country?

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Is it not the case that certain Exchanges have had orders not to refer men who apply to the sugar factories?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have given no instruction of that kind to the Exchanges. I cannot dictate to employers who they should employ or who they should not employ, and if an employer puts a request in a particular form the local Exchanges endeavour to comply with it, if it is a proper request, and it seems to me, on the whole, a proper request to make that they should not take people away from permanent agricultural employment in order that they should be drafted into seasonal work in a factory. The case is a very difficult one.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is absolutely a new departure in modern practice that a Minister of the Crown should agree to this differentiation? It is against the whole principle of free labour.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am asked to supply a certain kind of labour if I have got it, and I do my best to supply it.

LIVE REGISTER.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour how the figure for the live register compares with last year, having regard to the effect, if any, upon it of the last Unemployment Act and of any administrative action or regulations subsequent to that Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The latest figure for the live register was that for 15th February, and amounted to 1,139,300 as compared with 1,239,796, which was the
figure for 16th February, 1925. It is not possible to make a precise adjustment for the factors to which the hon. Member alludes, but as far as I can tell the reduction in the figures owing to these factors does not exceed 15,000 as a maximum, and probably is not more than 10,000, if as much.

Mr. T. SHAW: Can the Minister of Labour give the figures for the same date in 1924, when the conditions were comparable?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will give the right hon. Gentleman those figures if he will put down a question.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the data on which he bases those figures?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I asked for an inquiry to assist me in reaching as accurate an estimate as the circumstances allow. The calculations are too lengthy to come within the scope of an ordinary answer to a question, but I shall be glad to circulate a memorandum on the subject to hon. Members, and also, if it is deemed desirable, I will put up a diagram in the Tea Room illustrating them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that in a reply to a question last December I was told that there were over 150,000 applicants for extended benefit, 100,000 of whom were rejected?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, that is not my recollection of the answer I gave, but if the hon. Gentleman will refer me to it I will look it up, and he can put down another question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the Minister has admitted—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. We must get on.

WOMEN (BENEFIT).

Mr. LANSBURY: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will put in the Library copies of all circulars, rules and Regulations, secret and otherwise, that have been issued to Employment Exchange officials, committees, and others during the period the Minister has held office; will he inform the House whether any fresh instructions of any kind have been issued in respect of payment of standard or extended benefit to single or married women; whether he is aware that in East London a number of women of all
sorts and conditions have been refused payment of benefit, and that in many cases the women have been contributors for many years to the fund; and what steps he proposes to take in order to secure that these women shall receive the benefits they are taxed to provide for?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It has been the practice hitherto not to publish the instructions issued to the staff of the Ministry. I think this practice is sound and do not see my way to depart from it. All administrative changes in the conditions for the receipt of benefit are made or announced in Orders. Regulations or Directions to Committees, copies of all of which are placed in the Library. With regard to the last two parts of the question, I have made inquiries into cases cited by the hon. Member. I have only just received the full report and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have been able to consider it.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a very considerable number of women who have paid for standard benefit and who are not asking for extended benefit are not getting any unemployment pay at all from the Mansell Street Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am going through the report with the greatest speed that I can, but I only got it at 11 o'clock this morning and it runs into about 12 pages of close typewriting with single spacing. I hope to deal with it before the day is out, but I cannot do so much quicker than that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these women have contracted for unemployment pay with the State under the Statute and for some reason they are not getting it, and this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of January?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that they have, and I am aware that their claim was disallowed, and that the hon. Member questioned the disallowance. After that I had an inquiry made and that is the best I can possibly do subject to the fact that I will deal with any report with the utmost speed possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask what instructions have been given to this Exchange to prevent women getting even
the first week's unemployment pay? How can you charge women with not having genuinely sought work when they have only been out of work a day or two? You are just starving them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. LANSBURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the reason unemployment pay has been refused Elizabeth Grant by the Mansell Street Exchange; by whose authority this woman was served with a notice, dated 14th January, 1926, that she was not genuinely seeking work, during the time she was actually engaged in work; has any authority been given to the officials at this Employment Exchange to inform women that the law respecting payment of unemployment pay to married women has been changed, and that these are now to be refused; the reason Martha Jones, Annie Best, Esther Kerntiff, Marion Masters, and Mary MacDermott have been refused unemployment pay; how long a period these women have paid into the fund; and the sort of employment, if any, that has been offered them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards Elizabeth Grant, I have had a report. The fact that she obtained temporary work after the disallowance dated 14th January was before the Court of Referees, to which she appealed against the disallowance. The court nevertheless upheld the disallowance, and I cannot intervene. I know of no ground for the suggestion in the second part of the question. As regards the last five cases mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of 18th February.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the very time this woman was accused of not genuinely seeking work she was at work, and that those women whose names are given here were compelled by the State to pay contributions out of their weekly earnings and now through some secret instruction to the Employment Exchange officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it is a question of starvation—some secret instructions to the Exchange officials, these women are denied what the State contracted to pay them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The facts are not as stated by the hon. Member.

Mr. LANSBURY: They are.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The case in question came up, first of all, on the 3rd December. It came up again, and the disallowance dated from the 14th January. The disallowance was appealed against to the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees sat later, when the woman was in employment; they had all the facts in front of them, as well as the disallowance, and they held to their opinion. I ought to let the hon. Member know that in this particular case, where the woman had employment, it was found for her by the Exchange after two disallowances. I do not draw any inference from that, but the Court of Referees had the whole case in front of them, and were perfectly able to judge.

Mr. LANSBURY: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the statement I previously made was inaccurate, is untrue. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time this woman's case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—it is not a speech—was being investigated, and when she was charged with not being genuinely seeking work, she was at work; and, further—[Interruption."]

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot continue this discussion.

BENEFIT.

Mr. OLIVER: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that workpeople employed by the British Celanese Company, Limited, Spondon, who work six and seven shifts weekly when working ordinary time, are being debarred from signing at the Exchange for the sixth shift, thus losing a day's benefit when unemployed through short time: and will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to remedying this disability?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of what is suggested. My information is that employés of this firm, who normally work more than five shifts in the week, are permitted to count as a day of unemployment the sixth day in any week in which they only perform five shifts. The decision whether the sixth day is to be allowed in any individual case rests, not with me, but with the insurance officer, and any men who are dissatisfied with his decision can appeal to the Court of Referees.

Mr. OLIVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men employed by this company are being denied the right of signing for the sixth shift at the Derby and Long Eaton Exchanges, and that, in consequence, these men are being penalised to the extent of one day per week when they are unemployed; and will he make inquiries as to the Exchanges mentioned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the same information, but if the hon. Member will speak to me afterwards I will gladly go into any point.

Mr. OLIVER: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether insured persons ordinarily and mainly dependent on their insurable employment for a livelihood, who are denied covenanted benefit on the grounds of possessing very small cottage businesses, will be permitted to claim exemption from contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I explained to the hon. Member on the 10th February last, persons who desire to claim exemption under Section 3 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, must prove that they are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood on earnings derived from uninsurable employment. If, in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member, the insured persons are ordinarily and mainly dependent on their insurable employment, and not on their cottage businesses, it would not be possible to grant them certificates of exemption.

Mr. OLIVER: Do I understand from the Minister that the Ministry are prepared to take contributions from workpeople and, when they are unemployed, to deny them the right of drawing benefit because they happen to possess some small business, which may be run by a wife or other relative?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This, like the point in the next question, is one of those extraordinarily difficult compromises which are incidental to the Act. I will gladly communicate with the hon. Member afterwards about this also, if he will allow me.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man in an insured trade,
having also a spare-time job bringing him over 3s. 4d. a day, is in the position of having to pay regular contributions to unemployment insurance, while, if out of work, he is unable to obtain any benefit; and whether he contemplates any change in the regulations to alleviate this case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The position is substantially as stated, and is one of the difficult compromises which are inseparable from a system of this kind. It cannot be altered without legislation, and, I understand, is one of the points which Lord Blanesburgh's Committee will consider.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to obviate this?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes; after the Committee has reported, I have not the least doubt that legislation will be necessary, and it may be possible to deal with difficult points of this kind.

Mr. HARDIE: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women having standard benefit qualifications who after applying at Employment Exchanges have accepted uninsurable employment, and who have when again unemployed through no fault of their own made application at the Exchange, are informed that because they accepted uninsurable employment they have no right to any benefit for which they have paid; and will he investigate such cases with a view to reconsideration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of what is suggested, and I will gladly inquire into any case of which full particulars are furnished.

Mr. HARDIE: We are asking the Minister to publish this information. The Department itself has had this information, and I want to know what is meant by their asking for information which they have already got?

INSURANCE FINANCE.

Mr. RILEY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the amounts contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, respectively, by employers, workpeople and the State for the years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25; and the amounts received in benefit by unemployed persons and the cost of administration for the same years?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with these figures, take into account the fact that money was voted last week in this House for the purpose of an exhibition, and that articles are being sold in that exhibition this morning marked "Made in Germany"? I have one in my possession.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Following is the reply:

The amounts contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by employers, workpeople and the State, respectively, the amount received in benefit by unemployed persons, and the cost of administration (including the cost of Employment Exchanges so far as insurance work is concerned) for the years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25 are approximately as follow:


CONTRIBUTIONS.


Insurance Year.
Employers.
Work people.
Exchequer.




£
£
£


1922–23
…
18,110,000
15,900,000
12,170,000


1923–24
…
19,560,000
17,360,000
13,180,000


1924–25
…
19,580,000
17,340,000
13,150,000




Insurance Year.
Benefit.
Cost of Administration.



£
£


1922–23
…
41,880,000
4,450,000


1923–24
…
35,970,000
4,090,000


1924–25
…
44,570,000
4,600,000

EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, ROCHDALE.

Mr. KELLY: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to report that he has arranged for the provision of adequate accommodation for the work of the Rochdale Employment Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I indicated to the hon. Member in reply to a question on the 10th February, a scheme for re-housing this Exchange is under consideration. I am afraid I cannot say when a decision will be reached.

Mr. KELLY: Surely, the difficulties of the people concerned ought to have some consideration in connection with the question of providing proper accommodation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They have, indeed, but the question of accommodation is extraordinarily difficult.

JUVENILE CENTRE, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a danger that the Sheffield school for juvenile unemployed may be closed owing to the decision of the Ministry of Labour not to pay the whole cost of maintenance; and, if so, whether he will reconsider this decision?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Scales of grant for the year 1926–27 in respect of juvenile unemployment centres were notified to local education authorities on 25th January last. The scale applicable to Sheffield is a per capita grant equal to three-quarters of approved expenditure of the authority during the year to 30th September, 1925, or 75 per cent. of the actual approved expenditure during the coming financial year, whichever the authority may prefer. These scales of grant are of general application and cannot, I am afraid, be modified; I trust, however, the Sheffield authority will see their way to continue their centres on the terms offered.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures take no account of the large number of juveniles unemployed who are not registered at the Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The grant is made on the number of people who actually attend the centres. There is always a grant towards the centres.

MARKHAM No. 2 PIT, CHESTERFIELD.

Mr. SPOOR: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the number of men who have returned from Markham No. 2 Pit, Chesterfield, to Bishop Auckland, alleging that the conditions under which they were engaged were not observed by the management; and whether these men will receive unemployment benefit until such time as work under recognised trade union conditions can be secured by them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that some 100 men have returned. The question whether they will be entitled to unemployment benefit must be determined by the statutory authorities in the usual way, and this is in course of being done.

Mr. SPOOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 100 men out of 120 returned, and having regard to the somewhat peculiar circumstances of the case, will evidence be obtained?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will see that all proper evidence is obtained. I have heard so many conflicting accounts about it that I cannot give an opinion upon it, but I will try to see that all proper evidence is obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS.

GROCERY AND PROVISION TRADE.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the results of his inquiry into the grocery and provision trade were such as to lead him to the conclusion that sweating conditions do not exist in this trade?

Mr. TAYLOR: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds he declines to establish minimum rates of wages and apply the Trade Boards Act in the grocery trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will, if I may, answer these questions together. I cannot add to the statement on the points raised contained in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. W. Graham) on the 11th February.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases of women of 22 working 56½ hours for 15s. a week, and women of 17 working for 8s. 6d. in these trades?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of what information the hon. Gentleman has at his disposal, but I should be glad to have any that he has, and I have no doubt there will be ample opportunity in the House to discuss the decisions which have been reached.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I ask when we shall get the detailed report of the result of the inquiry so that we may consider it before the debate?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having it pushed on as quickly as I can, and I hope that as the reports come out they will be put at the disposal of hon. Members as soon as it is possible.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why trades boards in other industries have been set up since the Grocery Trade Board was discontinued, and whether the wages are less favourable in those trades than in the grocery trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I presume it was because the conditions are different.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Minister state upon what evidence he decided against setting up a trade board for the grocery trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot do that in reply to a question. In my opinion, the conditions were not such as to warrant it being done, but to give the reasons in detail would really be a matter for debate.

INVESTIGATIONS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour if the reports of the investigations recently carried out by his Department with reference to the establishment of trade boards in the drapery, meat, grocery and catering trades are now available for Members of the House; whether they are to be printed for the information of the public; and, if so, on what date will they be on sale?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I informed the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) on the 18th February, in the absence of unforeseen delays in printing, the four Reports should be issued in the course of next month. They will be placed on sale as soon as they are printed.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be a detailed Report, with the details of the evidence

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It will not give details of all the evidence, but I trust it will give all the evidence which hon. Members will need in order to come to a conclusion on the matter.

COTTON MILLS, INDIA AND JAPAN (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to state the hours of labour worked in the cotton mills of Japan as compared with those in the cotton mills of India?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer is of considerable length, I propose, with my hon. Friend's consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

In Japan, the legal maximum working hours under the Japanese Factory Act are fixed at 12 daily, including one compulsory rest hour, for women and young persons. An Amending Act of 1923 provided for the reduction of this maximum to 11 hours, including one compulsory rest hour, but this amendment has not yet been put into operation. According to statistics supplied by the Japan Cotton Spinners' Association, and published by the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Associations, which are the latest figures in my possession, the actual working hours in cotton mills in Japan, in the year 1924, averaged 9¼ per shift, two shifts being worked by the mills per day. In India, the legal maxima are 60 hours a week and 11 hours a day for adults, and six hours a day for children. The hours of labour actually worked in the mills in the Bombay Presidency in August, 1923 (the latest date for which statistics are available) averaged 10 and one-twelfth for men, nine and three-fifths for women and five for children.

PERMANENT SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of the instrument by which in 1867 the title of principal officer of the Civil Service was conferred upon the Secretary to the Treasury; what was the nature of the authority thereby given; what further change was made in 1919; and whether either of these instruments conferred upon that officer any right of interference in regard to appointments to other Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As already stated in my reply to questions on the 18th instant, the title of Permanent Secretary to the Treasury
was introduced in 1867. The official file containing the Treasury Minute and the papers leading up to it has been missing for over 50 years. The terms of the earliest extant record of the status of the Permanent Secretary as official head of the Civil Service, dating from 1878, makes it clear that such status was at that time a well-established fact, and I am led to the conclusion that it coincided in date with the re-organisation of the Treasury in 1867 and did not precede it. The position was re-affirmed, on the occasion of the reorganisation of the Treasury in 1919, by Treasury Minute. The official head of the Civil Service has the duty of advising the Prime Minister in regard to Civil Service appointments; and the approval of the Prime Minister is required in the case of all the more important appointments throughout the Service. The responsibility for making appointments rests with the Prime Minister and his Ministerial colleagues; and it is the duty of the official head of the Service to assist Ministers in the discharge of this responsibility with the best advice in his power.

Sir H. CRAIK: Has the Prime Minister consulted any of the surviving Secretaries of the Treasury, who might give him very valuable information? Further, has the legal aspect of the matter been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and is it not the case that the whole responsibility for making appointments in any particular office rests with the Minister entrusted by the King with the charge of that office?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a rather long question to go into by way of question and answer, but, during the whole of my short experience of ministerial life, the selection of the permanent secretaries of all the big offices, and, I think, one or two more of the head officials in these various Government offices, is in all cases the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It is perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister must have someone to consult in making these appointments, and the natural person for him to consult is the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the first person whom the Prime Minister has to consult, and always in the past
has consulted, is the Minister responsible for the Department; and is that Minister's authority to be overridden by the advice of a permanent civil servant?

The PRIME MINISTER: I assure my right hon. Friend that he is in error there. I attach the greatest importance to the ultimate selection being in the hands of the Prime Minister, because I think the Prime Minister, in his capacity as head of the Government, is probably the safest person in whose hands important appointments which affect the whole Service can be.

IRON AND STEEL TRADE.

Mr. DIXEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the position of the iron and steel trade is still causing anxiety to the Government; and, if so, in view of the Cabinet Committee's Report, what action, if any, other than safeguarding, does he propose to take with regard to this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to observe some signs of improvement recently, which I am hopeful will develop in this important group of industries, but I appreciate that the position is still an anxious one. I think the best assistance that the Government can render is by encouraging the placing of orders. The House will be invited to pass a Bill for guaranteeing East African loans which will, I hope, be of assistance with the placing of orders; and the same is true of the Electricity Bill which we intend to introduce.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us why funds are being used under the Trade Facilities Act to give improper competition in an over-supplied market in regard to the steel trade in Durham?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

SARAFAND (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).

Colonel DAY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the unsatisfactory hospital accommodation at Sarafand has yet been remedied, and, if so, in what manner?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The difficulties of hospital accommodation are being overcome by the conversion of existing buildings at Sarafand into a new hospital; the work is due for completion by 31st March next.

HEADQUARTER STAFF, HALTON.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of commissioned officers employed on administrative duties, as apart from technical instructional duties, on the headquarter staff at Halton?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer in 37 officers, this number being exclusive of a few officers temporarily borne as supernumerary to establishment, and also of four chaplains. Of the 37 officers in question, 13 are in command and general charge of the 2,000 aircraft apprentices, and 14 are employed on pay, store, supply and accounting duties.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is that precisely the same number as those employed at the Aldershot command?

Sir S. HOARE: No, and if it were, I should say the cases are very dissimilar.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that there are four chaplains employed? Are they all Churchmen?

Sir S. HOARE: No, there are boys of all denominations.

CADET TRAINING, CRANWELL (COST).

Mr. MERRIMAN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Air why the estimated gross cost of the education of a cadet at Cranwell for the current financial year is £615 as compared with the corresponding figure of £391 for Sandhurst?

Sir S. HOARE: The chief reason for the difference is that, while there are over 500 cadets at Sandhurst, there are under 100 at Cranwell, and the distribution of the standing and overhead charges over a smaller number naturally results in a higher per capita cost. Furthermore, the Cranwell cadets receive a higher rate of pay than those at Sandhurst, and the cost of workshop training for them, which comes to over £7,000 a year, is considerably higher. The costing figure of £615 is based on past expenditure. There have recently been reductions in the Cranwell estab-
lishment and the figure will probably be less in the coming year. I may add that in view of the technical instruction given at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, this Army Establishment is much more nearly comparable to Cranwell than is Sandhurst. The cost per cadet at Woolwich is £524 per annum, and the difference between this figure and the £615 per cadet for Cranwell is principally due to the fact that the number of cadets at the Royal Military Academy is more than double that at the Royal Air Force Cadet College.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does that £615 include the cost of instruction in flying?

Sir S. HOARE: No.

QUALIFIED PILOTS.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of qualified pilots in His Majesty's Air Force at the present time?

Sir S. HOARE: The number of qualified pilots in the Regular Air Force is 2,306, of whom, however, 103 are, for medical or other reasons, no longer available for pilots' duties.

BRENNAN HELICOPTER.

Mr. ROSE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the total amount expended upon the experiments in connection with the Brennan helicopter from the beginning until the abandonment of the design last year; and whether the country is under any further obligation to the inventor?

Sir S. HOARE: The total amount expended over the seven years during which the experiments have been proceeding at Farnborough is estimated at £55,000. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Brennan's contract with the Air Ministry expires on the 31st March next, and I am not aware that he has any contractual relations with other Departments of State.

Mr. ROSE: Why has this design been persisted in and all this money wasted?

Sir S. HOARE: The money has not been wasted. We learnt very valuable lessons from the experience gained.

Mr. ROSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that seven or eight years' work and an expenditure of £55,000 on
a thing that is smashed as soon as it was started is valuable? To whom is it valuable?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member can draw his own conclusions. In my view it has been of value to the Air Ministry and the State generally.

PASSENGER AIR SERVICES.

Sir F. HALL: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many passengers were carried in 1925 by civil air services operating to and from this country; and what proportion of these were carried by British-controlled services?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is 20,721; to the second, 51 per cent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister state the business he proposes to take to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to ask the House to consider the first three Votes out of Order No. 1—Supplementary Estimates for Pensions, Oversea Settlement, and Irish Compensation—and the second and third Orders, Reports of Supply of 15th and 23rd February.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.']

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 109.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): In presenting this Supplementary Estimate, it may be of some advantage if I state briefly the reasons which have necessitated it. I cannot deny that our original Estimates were at fault. It is, however, a sign that there has been no attempt to restrict, artificially, the operations of the Royal Warrant or the procedure of the Ministry in order to cut our expenditure down to the amount originally estimated. Medical treatment, medical assessment of the disabled, the admission of claims, and the award of pensions have proceeded without hindrance, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Warrants; and if in this process the cost has amounted to more than was estimated, it is the ex-service men and their dependants who have benefited.
4.0 P.M.
In a matter such as compensation for death or disablement by War service, the various factors which affect the expenditure of the Ministry are still so far liable to incalculable fluctuations that there must be a margin of error. We are, I venture to think, getting much nearer than we have been to accuracy of prognosis, but I would suggest that it is quite impossible to foretell with accuracy the operation during the year of very diverse factors. In the first place, we are not
dealing a fixed number. The number of pensioners is a fluctuating quantity. There are, of course, decreases because of the natural operation of death, remarriages of widows, and children growing out of the age when they draw allowances, and it is practically impossible for anybody in one year to say how much will be the grants during the following year. In addition to that, the amount which the beneficiaries are receiving is in some cases not yet a fixed quantity. There must be a certain number of officers and men who still remain on the conditional list, and whose pensions after medical examination may be altered. Therefore, we have two factors which make it impossible for us to estimate accurately what the expenditure will be. We have to make a guess, and a guess as nearly as possible correct.
In addition to those factors of uncertainty, we have this year two accidental factors for which allowance was made in the first instance, but which allowance has proved incorrect and insufficient. The first of those is due really to an accident in the calendar. In three of our largest classes of payment we get an extra week's payment in this year. It falls in this way. On Wednesday the pensions and allowances for medical treatment under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant are paid. In this year there is an extra Wednesday, because the last day of the financial year falls on a Wednesday. The widows draw their pensions on a Monday. In the next financial year, the first Monday falls on Easter Monday, and consequently, following our usual practice, we allow them to draw their pensions for that week a week earlier, namely, the preceding Monday, which consequently comes into this financial year. I do not pretend to say that that is the entire reason for the extra expenditure, because we had foreseen it to a certain extent, but the general factors of uncertainty which I have already mentioned have added to the amounts which fall to be expended in those directions.
The second factor is in some degree special to the present year, because the Ministry have, by the process of accelerating the accounting work involved in the payments made on the Ministry's account by our overseas agents, succeeded in securing an earlier
rendering of the accounts, and this involves an earlier refund of agency payments. The prompt rendering and payment of agency payments is obviously desirable from the point of view of public accounting, and I have to acknowledge the ready co-operation of the Dominion and other authorities overseas in meeting our wishes and placing at our disposal the services of their officials. At the same time, it has to some extent affected our finances. It has in the accounts of the present year involved some increase in all the Pension Subheads, as well as in the Subhead dealing with medical treatment, and we estimate the addition brought into the present year's expenditure somewhere in the neighbourhood of £200,000.
There are seven Subheads in which an additional sum is required to meet this year's expenditure, and I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I grouped them together so as to deal at the same time with oases in which like causes have operated to upset our Estimates. The first three Subheads I would wish to group together are Subhead E—Pensions of Widows and Children of Officers—Subhead L, and Subhead M. As far as the case of pensions to widows and children, amounting to £596,000, is concerned, two causes have operated to upset our calculations. On the one hand, the rate at which the pension list has been reduced by the re-marriage of widows and by children getting beyond the pensionable age has been somewhat lower than was anticipated, and on the other hand the full operation of the Warrant of 14th January, 1924, which for the first time gave pensions to widows of pensioners who had died more than seven years after their discharge from the service, has resulted in the admission of more claims than was anticipated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions stated in this House on the 11th of this month that 1,980 claims had been admitted in the past two years, and those 1,980 claims represent 59 per cent. of all the claims made in that respect.
Then, with regard to Subhead M—pensions to dependants—the excess expenditure in this direction is due to additional benefits which have been conferred on these classes in the last two years, and in particular to the application to parents of deceased soldiers of
the concession which had already been given to widows, namely, the right to claim pension if the death of a pensioner son has occurred more than seven years after his discharge. This is the first year that we have had a full working of these concessions, and I must confess that, having insufficient data, our calculations in that respect were incorrect.
The next two subheads that I would group together are Subhead K1 and Subhead O6. I group them together because the additional expenditure on these two Subheads is ultimately traceable to the same causes. In the course of the prolonged review of many thousands of cases since 1918, although I am glad to say that the majority have either been completely cured, or have reached a condition where the actual degree of incapacity is stable, it is inevitable that a minority, a substantial minority, should be found to be still suffering from conditions that refuse to yield to treatment, and in some cases gradually deteriorating. They must necessarily be on a conditional basis. I refer, in the main, to those suffering from such diseases as tuberculosis, to chronic cases of acute bronchitis, organic heart disease, and paralysis. It is obvious, when they are examined and found to be worse, and that their condition has deteriorated, that their pension must be increased. The increase in this direction, a very proper increase, has to a considerable extent off-set the reduction which has occurred in the Pension List by death and other causes. That is Subhead K1.
Subhead 06 is, as I think the Committee will see, traceable to the same causes. There are a large number of serious cases which must be provided for in hospitals. I am sorry to say that there are some cases which will always be so provided for. The excess expenditure on medical treatment is due entirely to the cost of treatment in hospitals being greater than expected. The expenditure on other forms of treatment has declined, and I think naturally so, because out-patient treatment is, in the main, the form of treatment which is obviously applicable to the less serious cases. As we get further from the War, and in proportion as those less serious cases are satisfactorily dealt with, we are left with the more serious cases which
require more elaborate treatment, and this treatment can only be given in the hospitals. That deals with those two Subheads.
The next is Subhead N—payments made under the Regulaions of the Special Grants Committee. These, in the main, are grants for education which are in excess of the anticipated requirements. The Special Grants Committee have the statutory duty of assisting to pay for education where hardship would have been caused because of the death of the father, and because the circumstances of the mother do not enable her to give that education which the father would have been able to give if he had lived. I am quite sure that this is an expenditure of which the Committee will thoroughly approve.

Mr. AMMON: Does that mean education of secondary school age—higher education?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Secondary education.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that a pension is granted to the widow, taking into consideration the education which the father would have been able to provide. Do the Ministry take into consideration any advancement in life that the man might have been able to make had he lived?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is always looked into very carefully by the Special Grants Committee, and, if they find, on examination, that a grant would be justified, then they make that grant. The next is Subhead R. I think it is an excessive expenditure of which the Committee will also approve. It is due to having made advances of pension, mainly in the case of claims on the part of widows, in which, on the face of it, according to medical advice, the claim appears so good that, although the full evidence necessary to enable the Ministry to make a formal award is not forthcoming, it is still reasonable to make an advance in anticipation of the award. This, of course, as the Committee will recognise, is a big concession. But I am quite convinced that, used with care, it is a concession which has averted much suffering and has been amply justified. It will be recognised that the further we get away from the War the more difficult
it is to adjudicate upon any claim that is made, and in consequence it must take longer to be able to determine. But where, on the face of it, the case looks a really good one, we meet the immediate necessities of the applicant by making a grant, while we assist the widow to make the necessary inquiries to produce the full evidence for establishing her claim. In most cases, I am glad to say, the advance turns out to be fully justified when the evidence is complete. In fact, the expenditure incurred is recovered subsequently, after the issue of pensions.
I have dealt briefly with all the subjects in which we have an excess of expenditure. This excess is offset to some extent by some savings on other accounts of expenditure. The largest saving of all comes under Subhead A. It is partly due to the natural decline of the work and partly to improved and simplified administration. As claims inevitably grow fewer and as current cases are settled by permanent pensions or permanent awards, and as cases no longer require handling by the Ministry, the volume of work that comes through from the area offices to headquarters obviously declines. The decline of the work obviously involves a decline in the numbers of the staff, and, therefore, a reduction of expenditure in that direction. A reduction of expenditure on administration means that out of the moneys voted by this House more goes in proportion to the pensioner, and less to administration. In the current year the cost of administration works out at a small fraction under 9d. for every £ of benefit which is given to pensioners.
The next subhead under which there is a saving is K2. I have already referred to the excess expenditure in connection with hospital treatment. This saving represents a decline in out-patient treatment and other forms of treatment, and it is a natural decline, because, as I have said, out-patients and other subsidiary forms of treatment are probably cases of less severe injury, for which at this stage the Ministry must, in the natural course of events, already have done all that can be done or that is required by the eases. The number of out-patients during the past year has decreased, and that is simply a continuation of the process which has been going on for the last three years.
The next three subheads are O1, O3 and O5. I group these savings together, because the decreased expenditure under these three subheads' is referrable to the same cause—namely, the decrease in the work of the medical examination of pensioners consequent on the increased stability of pensions. The number of men who are being examined each week now is only half of the number who were being examined last year and a third of the number who were being examined two years ago. As a result there are fewer doctors employed and fewer men who have to travel to the Boards. There is, consequently, less expenditure in paying their expenses. This process, in so far as it involves an increased stability of pensions and an end of repeated medical examinations of officers and men, is one which I believe to be in the interests both of the pensioners and of the country, and we look to that process of stabilisation to continue during the present year.

Mr. W. BAKER: Naturally the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been concerned to justify expenditure which represents an increase over the original Estimate. I am more troubled by the savings that have taken place than I am by the increases which have been found necessary owing to the increased cost of the activities of the Ministry. Under Subhead K2 there is a saving of £83,000 on treatment and training allowances. I submit that a saving of that magnitude is not justified, having regard to all the circumstances. Obviously, I am not in the advantageous position of the Minister in having information with regard to the whole of the country, but a statement has been supplied to me which claims to be a list of disabled ex-service men registered at the Valley Employment Exchange, who are said to be suitable for light or special employment. My information is that there are many ex-service men to whom training in light employment would be of tremendous advantage. If that statement be true, if there be any justification for the statement which has been handed to me, I ask the Minister very seriously to consider Whether there is not a case for giving training to an increased number of men.
Under Subhead O1 there is a saving of £20,000 on the salaries of doctors and other persons in connection with the
medical service. I submit that that saving is greater in proportion than the decline in the number of men who need such medical treatment. Under Subhead O5 Anticipated savings, I am told that as a result of the closing of the local area offices considerable delay takes place in providing treatment, owing to the time which is occupied in sending an application for treatment from the locality to headquarters. I am told that, owing to the size of the areas, in some cases at least a week passes before the application is received by the Deputy Commissioner for Medical Services. Apart from that, I believe that cases still occur where requisitions for treatment do not receive that sympathetic consideration which would appear on the face of them to be justified. I would like to read an extract from a letter which has been handed to me during the present week. I will be glad to pass the letter to the Minister after the Debate is over. The man says:
 On the 5th of last month (January) I made an application through the Area Office for treatment, and was referred to the Minister of Pensions specialist for examination. The examination took place about three weeks ago. On 27th January I received a notification to the effect that I was considered unfit, and was recommended for admission to the Ministry of Pensions Hospital at Saltash. The letter was dated 27th January. I waited until the 10th of this month, when I received another notification referring me to my own panel doctor for treatment. On the 11th I saw him, and he gave a certificate recommending institutional treatment, and gave no other treatment, as in his opinion I had been referred to him so many times, and he was not in a position to provide the treatment he considered suitable.
I do not want to bother the Committee with the whole of the letter. I have given the essential part of it. The rest of the letter goes on to say that he has not been able to obtain the treatment which both he and his panel doctor considered to be necessary. I would plead with the Minister in all these cases to do everything possible to see that treatment is given. As to Sub-head L, I would be glad if the Minister would make a statement regarding the Ministry's practice in the matter of deductions. Is it the custom of the Ministry, in making deductions from pensions in respect of children living, say, with a widowed mother, to pay such moneys into the Post Office Savings Bank Department in the name of the child, or,
on the other hand, do the Ministry retain the money in some fund of their own, so that the child does not necessarily have a knowledge of the moneys to its credit, and in any case has no control over the money automatically when the time comes?
Under Sub-head M, I would like to pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), with regard to the attitude of the Special Grants Committee towards educational grants for the children of working men. It is repeatedly stated that requests for educational grants are refused on the simple grounds that, had the father remained alive, he would not have been in an economic position to give the child the education which is desired. If there is any justification for that charge, I would be glad if the Minister would go into it. It appears to me to be altogether unsatisfactory that a child capable of receiving benefit from higher education should be denied that benefit on the simple ground that at the time of the death of the father he was not in an economic position to give that education. Arising out of that point, I ask the Minister whether the whole of the £10,000 mentioned in the account is for the education of officers' children?

The CHAIRMAN: Sub-head N refers to "non-commissioned officers and men."

Mr. BAKER: I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. I read it as being officers and non-commissioned officers. In that case the inquiry as to the expenditure of the £10,000 does not arise. But I would be glad if the other point could be considered. Under Sub-head R there is an item of £10,000, representing advances in respect of anticipated or interrupted pensions. It has been suggested to me—I cannot speak with any personal knowledge of the point—that that additional sum of £10,000 can be taken as an indication that the policy of the Ministry in closing the regional offices is leading to inefficiency at the Central Pensions Issue Office. I must say that I had some doubts myself with regard to the policy of the Ministry in closing the local area offices. Cases have come under my notice in which the policy has seemed to work to the detriment of individuals, especially parents unaccustomed to railway journeys, who were called upon to travel from Bristol to London in connection with
pensions issues. Quite apart from that point, perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say whether there is any justification for the suggestion that the £10,000 item, which is shown as an increase, has any relation to an increase or decrease of the efficiency of the Central Pensions Issue Office. One final point in that connection. Can we be told whether any part of the £10,000, and, if so, what proportion, is in respect of advances to men who propose to emigrate to the Dominions?
There are two cases which I should like to mention, and in connection with which I hope an appeal to the Minister may result satisfactorily. In my view, they both come under Item K1. The first is the case of a man in Brighton—whose name I can give to the Minister after-wards—and who claimed a pension for colitis in 1921. He was examined by the medical officer of the Ministry, who reported that in his opinion the colitis was due to service. In January, 1922, that case was submitted to the Appeal Tribunal and was disallowed. In July, 1924, the Ministry admitted that the colitis was due to service. In view of the fact that the Ministry's own officer in 1921 gave his opinion that the disease was due to military service, and that the Appeal Tribunal's decision has now been upset after a lapse of years, it seems to me there is a strong case for asking the Ministry to pay the arrears of pension accruing between the two dates. I know cases of this sort create much dissatisfaction, and it appears to me extremely difficult to dispute the contentions put forward by the men concerned, so I hope if the Minister has not at the moment the power to deal with this point, he will consider the advisability and desirability of securing such power. The second case is of an almost similar character. In 1922 a man claimed, and was refused, in respect of bronchial asthma due to the effects of a gas attack. In 1925 the Ministry admitted that his illness was due to service. The point at issue now is not whether the claim is justified or not, but whether the man should be given sympathetic consideration and the arrears for the lapse of time between the original refusal and the final grant. I regret to have taken up so much of the Committee's time, but I hope the Minister will be good enough to give his consideration to these cases.
I put them forward, not in any party spirit, but in the best interests of the persons who have made representations to me.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have two cases which I trust are not typical of the way in which some branches of the Ministry save money. The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech this afternoon referred to savings or anticipated savings under several sub-heads, and he particularly mentioned Sub-head K2, relating to treatment and training allowances. It is to one of the savings effected in that branch that I wish to direct attention. This is a case about which I have been in communication with the Department for a long time, and I may briefly relate the circumstances. It is the case of a trainee who was sent to the Cath-cart workshops. While there he died, and his comrades, out of their scanty pittances, collected almost £11 for his widow as a testimonial. Is it credible, that from that £11 the manager of the Government trainees' workshop retained £9 and refused to hand that sum over, on the ground that the money was required to assist in defraying the man's funeral expenses? As I say, I have been in communication with the Ministry about this case, and the answer given is that while the Ministry agreed to give this man training, it did not agree to bury him if he died, and that his friends must find the burial expenses. With the last communication which I sent on the matter, I enclosed certificates, witnessed, I believe, by a Justice of the Peace, from some of the men who had subscribed, and I made a final appeal to the Ministry of Pensions at Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh, asking them to reconsider the case, and to return the £9. To that communication I can get no reply. I ask the Minister if he will get somebody from his Department to make a full inquiry into all the circumstances of this case, because I am certain that no Member of the House could have any satisfaction in a saving of £9 effected in the circumstances I have described. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will give a promise this afternoon that he will inquire into the matter, and that the certificates which I sent as far back as last October will at least receive an answer from his Department.
Reference was also made to a saving on clerical expenditure, and in that connection I have another case. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary informed me on the 14th January that the Department were glad to be able to say that it had been found possible to regard the conversion hysteria from which Mr. So-and-So was suffering as attributable to military service and that it had been agreed to recognise his case as a pension case. We are now almost at the end of February, and I have had a communication this morning from the people concerned in this case, saying that they have had no intimation whatever from the Ministry about it. The man is actually starving; his relatives have been receiving Poor Law relief, and if a decision was reached by the Ministry on his case as far back as the 14th January, surely it is not too much to suggest that a more prompt intimation of this decision should have been conveyed to the pensioner and the local pensions office. Why should the man be required to wait for six or seven or an indeterminate number of weeks before the Minister's decision is conveyed to him? Is it by such means that a saving is being effected in clerical expenses? I do not know whether this arises from a shortage of clerical staff, or whether some part of the Departmental machinery has broken down—the Minister is in a better position to say than I am—but if it is through any lack of clerical assistance that these things are happening, I do not believe that any such savings as have been boasted about this afternoon can be justified. I am certain Members of every party in the House would agree to give the Minister any clerical staff he requires in order to see that instances of the kind I have indicated are not repeated. I trust, therefore, we may have a firm pledge from the Minister that such oases will be promptly dealt with in the future.

Mr. SPENCER: I am pleased to see that there is a saving under Sub-head O 3, and as far as my experience of medical boards is concerned, I should have been very pleased to find that sub-head swept away. In my opinion the medical boards of this country have been a discredit to the Ministry, and are among the worst institutions that have been set up. I know of no body of men who differ more
widely in their opinions regarding cases than men of the medical profession. The only board which could justly meet the requirements of all the people concerned, would be a board in which the final decision was not given by medical men but by some legal person who could weigh evidence, after medical evidence had been given on both sides.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how this matter arises on the present Supplementary Estimate. It might arise on the general Estimate for the Ministry, but I hardly see how it can arise here.

Mr. SPENCER: I hope to connect my statement with a particular case, in which a man's pension has actually been stopped. It seems to me I am justified in doing so if I can raise a particular case, under a certain head of the Vote, as was done by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I wish to show that in my opinion the responsibility for these cases is not so much on the Minister as on the medical boards. The Ministry has issued a memorandum with regard to final awards, in which they state that as far as possible they are trying to follow the practice adopted under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whoever wrote that memorandum seems to know very little about workmen's compensation, because there is the utmost dissimilarity between the two methods of procedure.
I listened with interest to the Minister's reply in last night's Debate, and I agree with him on one point, namely, that the injured soldier cannot both have his cake and eat it. He cannot say, if his disability is under 20 per cent., that he does not want finality, but, that if it is over 20 per cent., he does want finality. I agree that is an impossible position, but if the Ministry were following the procedure which is adopted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there would be no time limit whatever. Under that Act a man has a perfect right at any time to come forward and prove to the Court that he is suffering from the result of an injury, even though that injury occurred 16 or 17 years previously.
I myself have just had a case in which a man was injured 17 years ago and has not drawn a penny-piece of compensation during the whole of that long period, but then he got neuritis in the hand, and the insurance people paid him £100, after
17 years. If the Ministry followed the procedure which has been laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I maintain that any man who has a disability due to or aggravated by war service should have a perfect right at any time to come forward, unless he has voluntarily commuted, and prove that his disability is so due.
There is another point that I would like to bring out which affects men suffering from disabilities and who are what are termed "odd lots," and this is a burning question with the British Legion. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is what is known as the "odd lot," where, if a man can prove that the nature of his injury is such as to prevent him getting work upon the labour market, the Court have the right to assess full compensation to that man I maintain that the Government of the country should be the model employers, and that if you have in law an obligation imposed upon the whole mass of employers of this country either to find work or full compensation for a man whose injury is, say, one of 60 or 70 per cent., it should follow that that same law should apply to the Government with regard to pensions.

The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Member connect this with the Vote? Has it to do with medical referees or members of a medical board, or with policy? If it is a question of general policy, it cannot be discussed now.

Mr. SPENCER: It is a question of saving or spending money, but I will leave the point by saying that, in my opinion, if a man has 70 per cent. disability and cannot find work because of his lack of real working capacity, the Ministry should either pay him the full 100 per cent. pension or should find him work themselves. I have a case here of a man who was a miner, working at the coal face before enlistment. He passed A1, and went on active service. He writes to me this week asking if I can see the Minister again, because his pension was stopped in 1923. His doctor says he is suffering from rheumatism as the result, in his opinion, of war service, but the Ministry's medical board say he is not. This man can no longer do work that he did before he enlisted; he cannot go to the coal face, and the colliery com-
pany find him a light job, but it means that his wage is so small that he cannot live as he ought to live. That man's pension was stopped as far back as February, 1923.
These are cases which give rise to a very great deal of disappointment and discontentment. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to serve on the Midland Advisory Council, who have brought these points up repeatedly to the Minister's attention, and so have other councils. There is widespread discontent with regard to the administration of the law, and upon these points they have been asking for some revision. I would like to know whether it would be possible for this case, which I will give to the right hon. Gentleman after this Debate, to be attended to again, because I am certain of this fact, that the medical testimony of the doctor who knew the man before he enlisted, who knew him after he came back, and who knows the clinical history of the man, should be taken rather than that of two or three doctors on a medical board who may see him on some particular day when perhaps the rheumatism may be temporarily absent. A case of this character should have far more sympathetic attention than it has been given, because the Ministry has undoubtedly been influenced by the decisions of the medical board.
I would like to mention another case about which I have written to the right hon. Gentleman. It is the case of a man named Sedgwick, who was working at coal-cutting when he enlisted, and who is now suffering from a mental disorder and is in an institution, and for whom treatment is actually provided and paid for by the Ministry, and yet the wife and family of that man have had their pensions stopped. How can the Minister justify an action of that character? They maintain him and keep him in an institution, and yet, after he has had a pension, by some means or other they arrive at the conclusion that the mental disorder is not due to or aggravated by war service. How they arrive at those conclusions I do not know. The fact is that the man was all right before he enlisted, and it was only when he had enlisted and come back again, after seeing service, that the mental derangement was noticed.
I would like to have said something with regard to final awards and things of that character, but as you, Mr. Hope, have ruled them out of order, I will not do so, but I would ask that these two cases that I have mentioned should have some consideration. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most men who are seeking to serve upon advisory councils, the time has arrived when a far more sympathetic consideration should be given to many of these cases where men are suffering injustice due to some hasty or abnormal decision.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I will not attempt to deal with a large number of individual cases, because many hon. Members are anxious to speak, and, of course, I shall respect your ruling, Mr. Hope, that we are not allowed to trespass on questions of policy, but I feel that the great dissatisfaction which is felt in Scotland and other parts of the country with the Pensions Ministry arises not mainly from dissatisfaction with the administration of the pensions, for indeed we are met with great sympathy by the Minister and those hardworking ex-service men who, in great number, staff the Scottish regional headquarters and the various Scottish districts of the Ministry of Pensions. What we are met with time after time is the sympathetic regret that, owing to the Royal Warrant, the Minister's hands are tied and that the officials of the Ministry cannot help us. That, I think, is the reason why so many of us feel, as so many hon. Members felt last night, that the time has come when either we must have some form of inquiry into the whole basis of the administration of pensions, or we must appeal to the Minister to consider the representations which have been made by the Scottish advisory council and the other advisory councils, and to see whether he cannot introduce some short measure into Parliament which would give us some satisfaction.

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member should not do. I am afraid his exordium before coming to his argument is rather a long one.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My exordium was not suggesting any particular form of legislation, but only asking the Minister himself to give his consideration to these questions. We, in Scotland, do feel
proud of the Scottish regional headquarters and of the very able men who staff it and who do their best within the limits by which they are bound. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway who disagrees with me would not, I think, feel any happier if he was under the administration of the Pensions Office in Acton.

The CHAIRMAN: In any case, I do not see that any money has been taken for these gentlemen.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: In regard to Sub-head L, which provides for the grant of more than half a million of money and brings the total Estimate for that important sub-head up to £18,500,000, this is a vital thing which affects individual men and women in Scotland and elsewhere more closely and nearly than any of the other Sub-heads. This is a very large sum of money. Not one of us grudges one penny of the money which we are to vote under this Sub-head, but in the administration of this Vote it is particularly important that we should have a staff in sympathy with the pensioners whose interests they have to look after, who have knowledge of the people, local knowledge of their customs, and who are themselves ex-service men and animated by a sincere desire to serve not only the interests of their masters, the taxpayers, but also and at least equally the interests of the pensioners which they have been appointed to look after. Therefore, I am a little suspicious myself, and I share the suspicion expressed by an hon. Member above the Gangway just now, of the savings which are apparently contemplated under Subhead A of £144,000.
I cannot help feeling that if this proposed change of bringing the Scottish regional headquarters back to Acton is insisted upon, it will undoubtedly affect the administration of the pensions system in Scotland most adversely. That, at any rate, is the opinion of the Scottish Advisory Council and of most of the Scottish Members of this House, I think, and it is one that we shall take occasion to bring before the Minister very strongly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry rightly said, in the course of his introductory remarks, that the decline in the work involves necessarily a diminution of the staff, but I
would refer to an answer which the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), on the 10th December last, in which he showed what the cost of the administration was, on the one hand, at Acton and, on the other hand, in Edinburgh, and from which it appeared that, whereas the number of cases dealt with at Acton was rather more than nine times the number dealt with in Edinburgh, the cost of administration at Acton was rather more than 18 times that of the administration in Edinburgh. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, replying to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) on Monday last, pointed out that it was very difficult to compare the two figures, and said that
 a comparison between the cost of each case dealt with at Acton and Pilton would be misleading, as the staff attached to the former office performs duties which have no counterpart in the Pilton Office, and in addition undertakes a number of services common to itself and other branches of the Ministry with a staff of 1,220 housed in the same building."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1926; col. 60, Vol. 192.]
5.0 P.M.
But that cannot account for the enormous gap between the number of cases and between £463,000 and £29,000. Moreover, those who are in touch with the administration of pensions in Scotland are aware that the London offices have in various cases taken the Scottish Office as their pattern because of its efficiency and fine organisation. In these circumstances, a very large majority of Scottish Members feel that it would be a very great disaster to us if we were to lose our administration there. Another point which is very important is that the men who actually look after the pensioners should be themselves ex-service men. Too often, it seems to us, the diminution of the staff has been effected by getting rid of what are called temporary civil servants, of whom the great majority are ex-service men, and putting in their places permanent civil servants who are by no means always ex-service men themselves. We in Scotland very strongly feel that if this change involves taking away the administration of pensions from ex-service men and handing it over to men who are not ex-service men, to that extent it must be prejudicial to the interests of the pensioners. We strongly
affirm the principle that this diminution of staff must not be at the expense of the pensioners, and we do think that either it means handing over his business to men of another race and another outlook and another country or handing it to people who are not ex-service men and that the pensions administration in Scotland must suffer. In conclusion, without entering into the details of any particular case, I would ask the Minister to free himself from the trammels which the Royal Warrant too often imposes upon him and to maintain the Scottish headquarters in Edinburgh and, as far as possible, to maintain the ex-service personnel.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I was rather astonished to hear the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) making such a statement as he made to the effect that he regretted that the reduction under Sub-head O 3 of £75,000 for fees to members of medical boards and medical referees was not much greater. As a member of the medical profession, I think it is not doing the pensioners of this country a great deal of good to make them dissatisfied with the medical referees who are judging those cases.

Mr. SPENCER: I objected to that item because the medical referees differ so very widely. I can give the hon. Member certificates from doctors in which he could scarcely credit the differences between them in their opinions on certain cases.

Dr. DAVIES: I quite appreciate that, but the peculiar thing is that the hon. Member is quite prepared to accept the certificate of a panel practitioner, but when the same doctor is acting as a medical referee on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions he seems to think the certificate must be wrong. Possibly it is wrong; doctors differ and disagree, and when it comes to a matter of interpretation of symptoms each man is entitled to his own opinion. I think hon. Members who create dissatisfaction in the minds of the public with the decisions of these medical men are doing the pensioners a great disservice. We have to remember that since the War a new state of mind has developed. Any illness which any man who has been at the War develops is regarded of necessity as being due to the War. If a man develops rheumatism six
or seven years after his War service, it is said that the rheumatism must be due to the War service; but people who have not been to the War develop rheumatism. Hon. Members should give medical men the credit for being honest in their opinions and should try to convince the people of this country that there are diseases with which the War has no connection.

Mr. SPENCER: Would the hon. Member agree with a man, who had a pension for rheumatism and who has rheumatism to-day, connecting his present rheumatism with his War service?

Dr. DAVIES: It does not follow at all. Any man at any age over 20 is liable to have attacks of rheumatism, and his War service may have nothing to do with it or it may have. If a man got rheumatism in the War he might be cured and 10 years afterwards he might get rheumatism again, and it would be wrong to say that it was due to War service. A man may have had a bad tooth in the War and been cured, and if he got a bad tooth years afterwards you would not say that that was due to War service. I think it is doing harm to create the impression that these medical men are not honest.
The point upon which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister is to Subheading O 6—"Medical Treatment of Disabled Officers, Nurses and Men." I see that you require for this an additional £216,000, which is roughly 10 per cent. of the original Estimate. The explanation which is given is that additional provision had to be made owing to the number of disabled men requiring institutional treatment being greater than was expected. I should like a little more information as to why there has been this great increase. Does it mean that certain cases have become worse than was expected, or are the Ministry taking cases into the institutions which before they had not room for or did not feel inclined to take in?
One class of cases to which they might extend their efforts are the neurasthenia cases, which are becoming more and more troublesome and in some cases there are definite hardships. I would like to put one case of a man who served three or four years in different parts of the world, who was never wounded although he was in action several times. His nerves were rather upset, and he came home and
returned to work, and worked a couple of years, and then he was involved in an industrial accident. He was not hurt himself, but he was present when another man was hurt, and that seemed to be the last straw. The man after that developed neurasthenia, and for the last two and a half years he has not been able to do any work, and he can get no relief from anybody. I am perfectly convinced that it was seeing this industrial accident that sent this man off his mental balance, and I would like to know if there is any possibility of the Ministry taking up cases like that and giving them treatment in a proper hospital.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to call attention to one of the sub-headings which relates to savings, and to point out that, while in the past there were 14 firms engaged in making limbs for ex-service limbless men, one of the economies practised by the Ministry of Pensions has been to reduce the number to two.

The CHAIRMAN: That appears to come under another Vote. There is no reference to saving in this Vote.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point is that this Estimate would have been greater had it not been for the saving that this is carrying out.

The CHAIRMAN: In the original Estimate there is a special item for artificial limbs, and so on, and there is neither increase nor saving shown.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But surely I am entitled under this heading to raise the question of how the money was spent. I was coming to the point of how it has been spent. My point is that this money is being spent on two firms whereas formerly it was spent on 14.

The CHAIRMAN: But for limbs there is no extra sum of money. There is no item of either saving or increase.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But it concerns the training and treatment of officers, noncommissioned officers and men, and I understood that the giving of limbs to limbless ex-service men formed part of the treatment and training.

The CHAIRMAN: That might be so if there were not a special item in the Estimates dealing with this very matter.
There is such an item, but there is no increase and no saving shown in it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, I accept your ruling. The only point I wanted to raise was that there were 14 firms doing work—

The CHAIRMAN: That would be out of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But I want to raise this point very seriously—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that the rules governing the discussion of Supplementary Estimates are very strict, and that you can only discuss a matter when there is an increase or saving on the particular item. On this item, as it appears in the original Estimate, there is no increase or saving, and, therefore, the hon. Member cannot discuss it.

Mr. MAXTON: If my hon. Friend can show to you, as he can, in the interest of economy in this particular Department, that greater expenditure is being incurred on account of hospital treatment of limbless men by reason of the fact that the limbs are clumsier, though cheaper, than before, would that not be in order?

The CHAIRMAN: If it came under an item on which there is a saving, it would be in order, but as there is an entirely separate item in the original Estimate, and nothing in the Supplementary Estimate dealing with that, obviously it is not in order. It can be raised no doubt on the main question or on the Vote on Account.

Mr. MAXTON: There is an additional sum required for medical treatment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will find in the original Estimate that there is an item which deals with this matter.

Mr. MAXTON: It deals with limbs. I am dealing now with the question of the treatment of limbless ex-soldiers, which, I submit, comes within the scope of this item.

The CHAIRMAN: Limbs come under O.8.

Mr. MAXTON: I submit that this comes under O.6.

Mr. LAWSON: Cannot the Committee deal with the medical treatment of limbless men in general terms under item O.6?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not, because there is a special item for that, and I am bound by the rules that govern the point.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I wanted to put was that a number of ex-service men have complained to me that because of the nature of the new limbs that are being made, extra expense is involved, and that therefore that is causing an increase in the expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be a perfectly relevant argument on O.8, and it might be on O.6, if there were no such thing as O.8, but there is such a thing as 0.8, and therefore it is not relevant.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would it not be relevant to argue on O.6 that the amount is necessarily increased owing to the fact that men are having badly fitting limbs, and therefore have to undergo institutional treatment, and therefore this particular item O.6 is being necessarily inflated owing to the fact that the limbs are not the most suitable?

The CHAIRMAN: If that reasoning were allowed, it would make almost anything in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept your ruling, but, on the first available opportunity, I intend to raise this question with the Minister of Pensions. I will refer to the question that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Caith ness (Sir A. Sinclair), namely, the anticipated saving on Salaries, Wages and Allowances. I understand that part of the savings is due to the fact that work of the regional area in Edinburgh is being transferred. Whatever differences there may be on Scottish matters, there is one thing upon which we are united, and that is that we ought to retain the offices at present situated in Edinburgh. I disagree with the hon. Member on the question of what the officials might have been. I have met some of the officials and had correspondence with them, and if they were not always just what they might have been, after all, the people who have to deal with pensions are the representatives of the ex-soldiers them selves, and in Scotland the unanimous opinion amongst the ex-service men—

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): On a point of Order. The question of the abolition of the Scottish region does not affect this Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) was arguing that part of the savings of £144,000 was due to the transference, or contemplated transference, of the regional area. Of course, if that be not so, it is out of order. Objection was not taken on the point before.

Major TRYON: The question of the abolition of the Scottish region has not been decided, and if it is decided it cannot in any case take place in the present financial year.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: One part of the Scottish region has already been abolished.

The CHAIRMAN: I must know whether any part of this £144,000 saving is owing to the partial withdrawal of work from Edinburgh to London. If that be so, then the matter is in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should have thought the Minister would have raised this point when it was discussed by a Liberal Member, rather than wait for me. Regarding the transfer of the Issue Office, the ex-service men in Scotland feel that Edinburgh is much more accessible to them for making complaint with regard to the issue of pensions, and if you transfer to London this office you are drawing on—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand there is no saving contemplated, or possible, from transferring the whole of the office?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was only dealing with the Issue Office, which has been transferred.

Major TRYON: The Issue Office remains in Edinburgh, and will obviously be there for the whole of the current financial year.

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that none of this saving is due to the transfer of work from Edinburgh to London? Otherwise the discussion would be in order.

Major TRYON: I submit that the question of the transfer of the whole Department to London is not in order, and that the transfer of the Issue Office is not in order.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: May I ask the Minister of Pensions to relieve the Committee of the necessity of further discussion on this point by admitting what he can now do quite freely, that there will be no saving from the transference of pension work from Edinburgh to London?

Major TRYON: I certainly cannot do that, because I understood that the argument of the hon. Member was that the saving on the transfer was the justification for being in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister might have helped us at least by informing the Committee on that point. If the Minister says that no part of the Scottish Regional Office is being transferred, and that no saving is being effected, then I immediately leave that point.

Major TRYON: The widows' part has been transferred with a saving, and that, I think, has been raised frequently in the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have at last got the statement that there has been a saving. May I say that the whole Scottish sentiment is against the transfer of any Department? We view the transfer of the Widows' Department as merely a preliminary to the whole transference, and we hope that the Minister, even yet will reconsider it. I agree with the hon. Baronet who raised this point that there will not be very much saving, if any at all, by the transference. We hope the Minister, if it is not too late, will reconsider his decision as to this transference of the Widows' Department, and see if the Edinburgh Office cannot remain intact. After all, the Minister of Pensions is aware of the fact that, in order that his machine may run smoothly, he must at times give way to local sentiment, even though he occasionally may not agree with their views. For the sake of getting harmony and the smooth working of the machine, it is surely wise to give way to a certain amount of local sentiment, and on this matter of the transference of the Widows' Department, the Scottish Advisory Council, the British Legion, and all the other ex-service men's organisations are uanimously opposed to any transference either of the Widows' Department or any other Department. Although the Minister might be able to prove to me that certain economies could be made, and a little more expedition effected in the
work, in view of carrying with him what, I am sure, all of us desire, namely, the co-operation of all the local people, he ought to reconsider his decision and give to Scotland the status it formerly had.
I would like to ask the Minister one question regarding the general treatment, and the savings in regard to Medical Boards. I have had some complaints that people are kept waiting too long, or at least what they think is too long, for a Medical Board. So long as Medical Boards are continued, and in view of the fact that large numbers of ex-service men are still anxious for a Medical Board, might I ask if this reduction is not too large, in view of the work they have to undertake? There is another point with regard to Medical Boards. I have recently had brought to my notice the case of a man who died in Bellahouston Hospital. He was in receipt of a pension. The medical officer asked the widow if she would agree to have a postmortem examination, and the widow, after consultation with the family doctor, agreed. As a result of the postmortem examination, certain organs were found to be affected, which would never have been known had the woman not given her consent to the examination. Having gained that knowledge, they are using it against the woman receiving a pension, although she was informed that anything they found as a result of the examination would not be against her receiving a pension. It seems to me that the work of the Medical Boards ought to be reviewed, and if we are to have them, they ought to be more just to the ex-service man.

Mr. PALING: The Supplementary Estimate refers, in the first place, under Sub-head M to pensions and gratuities to dependants other than widows and children of deceased seamen, and of deceased warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men of the Marines, Army and Air Force. The main reason given for asking for this increase of £200,000 is that the number of beneficiaries has not declined to the extent anticipated. I should like to ask the Minister whether any of this increase is because any of these dependants have had their pension raised? I have a suspicion that the pensions given to people of this description are looked upon in the great majority of cases as being the maximum sum.
I am afraid in a good many cases there is great difficulty in getting them. I have a case in my mind which I brought to the attention of the Minister and, of course, the increase was given. It did not, however, appear to me to be at all satisfactory. It was a case in which the father and mother had had a son killed, the father had dropped on evil times, and had become a sheer nervous wreck. They had three children under 14 years of age. The circumstances of the father and the family were extremely difficult. If my memory serves me aright, the amount of increase in the pension for him and his dependants was about 2s. per week, making 7s. 9d. a week. It struck me that was not a very generous offer.
I should also like to ask whether the question of old age is taken into account when these people apply for an increase? I have another case here, which is before the Ministry at the present time, where the people have a pension because their son was killed. I take it that the earning capacity of the father—and the mother, too, to a certain extent—would be taken into account when the pension was granted. Since then eight or nine years have elapsed. The people have become older, and the father can no longer work, as often as he used to do; and the mother cannot work at all. The income of the family has decreased to a tremendous extent. Is a case of this description dealt with by the pension authority, and have such cases any difficulty in establishing the claim to an increased pension?
There is a third case also being put to the Ministry, the case of a family of working-class people who have had a hard struggle. They had a son gifted rather above the average. He had gained a scholarship at a secondary school, had shown ability and capacity, and was going forward. By dint of the sacrifice of his parents he was kept at school. They ultimately sent him to the university. He was about 20 years of age. After having gone through a couple of years of his university career he joined the Army and was killed. The parents had made tremendous sacrifices in order to keep the lad where he was. Their wages were very small. They were looking forward to the time in about 12 months from then when their son would
be released from the university, and have a decent career in front of him. At the time the pension was allocated to the parents the earning capacity of the father was sufficient to go on with, and to keep the family in what is supposed to be relatively decent comfort. Since then, nine or 10 years ago, the father has had to retire from work. Would this be a case in which such people would make an application with any reasonable prospect of success of having the pension increased? I know lots of these cases, where they have the suspicion that the pension being paid is the maximum, and they are afraid of making an application for fear that the bit they have might be reduced ! Perhaps the Minister will answer as to how much of this money is due to the fact that increases of pensions have been given to such cases as I have set out.
Before I conclude, I should like to refer to Subhead M, which deals with the expenditure in respect of Children's Education. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech to say that, where the parents of these children were granted anything extra for education in the secondary schools, it was granted under circumstances where had the father continued to live, the position would not have been such as to enable him to give his child a secondary education in ordinary circumstances. I have a case which I brought before the Ministry in which the child probably would have had a secondary education in any event. The Ministry did not treat the case ungenerously. They were very decent over it. There are to-day an ever increasing number of working-class children who win scholarships, who, under the terms quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, would not have been looked upon in the ordinary course of events as children liable for secondary education because of the economic position of their father. But they have gained scholarships, which means extra sacrifice on the part of the widow, that is the mother, for her child to attend the secondary school. I should like to ask the Minister whether the greatest consideration, or indeed any consideration at all, is given to children of this description, and whether any of the amount of the increase asked for under the Subhead is due to the fact that there is an
increase of the number gaining scholarships, some of whom must be the children of widows of this description, and whether in these cases these widows are treated generously in order that their children may continue until the end of the term that they reach 16. If the Minister cam give us any satisfaction on this and tell us that some of these increases are due to the fact that the money has been given in this direction, we, on this side, will offer no opposition to the increase for which he is asking.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I seldom intervene in these debates on pensions, because I realise that the case is so very well put by hon. Members who sit on various committees, and therefore it is not necessary for one not so well acquainted with the intricacies of the matter to interfere. But there are one or two points I should like to raise. It will strengthen the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). It is the case of a man named Bollen, of Merthyr Tydvil. This man was badly wounded. I myself have seen the man's wounds. I am quite sure he suffers terribly and in a particularly disagreeable manner. I understand that he is not receiving a pension. Some time ago I made an application on behalf of this man that he should have independent medical examination with a view to receiving further hospital treatment. The Ministry acceded to this request. I have a letter from the man dated the 6th of the present month, which says that he encloses two medical certificates from his panel doctor stating that he required military hospital treatment.
I was,
he writes,
before the military doctors on the 16th December, and up to the present I have not heard of the result.
He adds—
 I am very anxious to hear the result, as I am still attending on my own doctor, and as I am suffering great pain.
I have in my possession a certificate from Mr. Bollen's panel doctor authenticating what I say. If this man is suffering in the way the panel doctor declares, then he ought to have military hospital treatment, and seeing he has been before an independent board, has had his request granted, he ought to know by now what is the result of his
application in respect to further military hospital treatment. It seems to me to be rather cruel to keep the man in doubt as to what his fate will be under all these circumstances. Before the War this man was, and still is, a skilled workman. He bears an exemplary character so far as his employers were concerned. No word has been raised against him, yet at the present he is from time to time breaking down in health and cannot work more than three or four consecutive days in the week. Surely this is a case which ought to have very, very sympathetic consideration from the Ministry. It is a very distasteful thing to have it borne in upon one that there is a class attitude adopted in regard to questions of this sort. It is not pleasant. Yet in view of the way in which cases of this description are from time to time treated one has to come to conclusions which one does with regret. I think in some of these matters there is something radically wrong. Might I press this case upon the Ministry of Pensions, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to say something of the scandal of which they know. I suggest, indeed I want to say very emphatically that in my opinion quite honestly and sincerely this man deserves not only hospital treatment, but a pension to make up to him for the loss of earning capacity caused by wounds received in the War.

Mr. AMMON: I desire to raise two or three points which, I think, will come under Subhead L—Pensions and Gratuities to widows and children of deceased seamen, etc. I will not give the Minister names in Committee, but if he desires to see the communications I will be glad to pass them over. The first letter I have received—an express letter—deals with the case of a late chief petty officer who was invalided from the Royal Navy on the 7th May, 1919, and subsequently died on 9th September, 1925. The Ministry of Pensions contend that the man was removed from duty on 31st July, 1918, and that the seven years' limit operates from that date. The difficulty that some of us see arises from the fact that the man actually was in the Service and received promotion after that date of July, 1918. The man's parchment paper which has been sent along also bears that out. Application has been made on behalf of the widow separately, and that has been turned down. It is contended that She is entitled to a very much higher
pension than 25s. a week for the support of herself and children, and that the Royal Warrant in this respect shows there has been a mistake.
The other case is on somewhat similar lines, and is even worse. It concerns a man who on the 5th January, 1916, was removed from duty suffering from tubercle of the tongue. Subsequently he was treated for double pneumonia in 1917, and for influenza and laryngitis in 1918, but the fact is that he served for three years overseas after his first removal from duty, and he died in 1924. It is now contended that the seven years' limit is to count from his first removal from duty; but the point is that he died, not from the complaint that was diagnosed when he was first removed from duty, but a complaint which he subsequently contracted and for which he was ultimately removed from duty. It is contended that the first removal from duty should not count, but rather the second, and that his wife should have consideration on those grounds. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to this case.

Mr. HARDIE: The medical side of the ex-service man's case has always been regarded as very unsatisfactory. In what I am going to say to-day I am not making any attack upon medical men as such, but I want to draw the Minister's attention to certain things that are taking place which cause honest laymen, knowing the circumstances, to feel that a certain injustice is implied in the decisions. It is of little value in a Debate to introduce cases which the speaker does not know very well, and this afternoon I shall speak of men whom I knew before they went to the War. They are cases where I have gone personally to the works where the men worked prior to joining the Army; cases in which I have interviewed the medical man who was called the family doctor.
Having explored all the avenues to get detailed evidence at first hand, I now bring forward these cases as illustrating the general position. One of the cases belongs to the class which goes under the name of rheumatoid arthritis cases. A medical Member on the other side of the Gangway made a statement to-day in regard to that disease, and said it was
possible for a man to have been at the War and to have developed rheumatoid arthritis and yet for his complaint to have no relation to his war service. Against that contention I am bringing forward the case of a man who before he went to the War was a steady workman, always at his work, never suffering from any nervous or physical disability that ever kept him from either following his occupation or every form of sport to which he was attached—it is the case of a man recognised by the whole community among whom he lived as being always in fit health prior to joining up. When he was in the Army he was not only classed as A1, but did everything that A1 men only were claimed to be fit to do. When this man returned he shortly afterwards developed rheumatoid arthritis, swelling of the joints taking place.
When we get to the hospital where cases in this special group are treated, we start inquiring whether the man is suffering from something contracted after the War or during his war service. And here is a grievance which we get in most of these cases. I went down specially to be present at the medical examination of certain of these men. There was present "the special Government doctor," as we call him in Scotland, because that is what he really is, and there were other representatives there. The man was asked various questions and he replied to them. Then he was dismissed, and we were left. What I want to get to is this: The man who is suffering from this disease is told, in a vague way, that the Department to whom he makes his appeal is not responsible, but in private, when the man is not there who should be told, the medical men not only hint but make certain statements implying what has produced what the man is now suffering from. If we are going to deal fairly with cases such as that, we ought to have the courage to tell the man what is the medical opinion. Then I can see what is going to happen. If a statement is put on paper, and handed to the man, alleging that a certain thing has happened in his life that has produced this disease, though he is not able to take action I can see the kind of action that is going to happen. I can see the whole family up in arms against the statements made—if they are made in public as now
they are made in private. My appeal to the Minister is, that in future there ought to be some method whereby the unfortunate man is made quite well aware of these things. If we told the man that what he is suffering from is due to some personal mistake in his life or his conduct, he then would have a right to take the matter up and prove that it was not so, or allow you to prove that it was. There is no fairness at all in the present position.
I come to the next case. It belongs to the group of cases in which a man, feeling well, signed that paper which so many signed stating that he was all right. After three years, say, he developed something which medical men have agreed could have been caused by the War. During the interval he has been following an employment which would not be likely to cause that to develop. We have cases, especially, of heart disease in this class. I know the difficulty medical men have when it comes to a question of heart eases, because a man did not need to go to the War to develop an affection of the heart. One case I know of concerns a man who was a hammer man in an engineering shop at Springburn. He swung his hammer for nine years before he joined up. When he returned he signed that statement that he was feeling all right. Then a certain trouble affected him, and now he is told that the trouble that has developed has nothing to do with the War. What I want is that the medical men who are acting for the Government should tell the man exactly what they believe to be the disease and the cause of it. Let us have plain speaking. Let us get an understanding between the Government and the man. We could save a good deal of money in postage and envelopes and paper if we told these people direct, because when they get these little printed slips they send them on to the Member and ask him to explain what it means.
As to the shrapnel cases there can be no doubt in the lay mind about them. With an X-ray photograph even a layman can see the shrapnel present in the body. But then a medical man comes along and says that the man with the shrapnel in his body is quite tit. When you hear that you begin to wonder as to the fitness of the medical man. I know of another case of a man with 24
pieces of shrapnel in his body. He has made every effort to follow his occupation and his employer is doing everything he can for him. Every morning that he can walk the man goes down to his bench, and he may be able to work for one, two or three hours, and then he becomes dizzy and falls down. It is not epilepsy—I have gone into all that, and it has nothing to do with any nervous disturbance, and nothing to do with any form of poison. Medical men say that this man is quite fit.
Need I remind the Minister of Pensions of what happened in the Cathcart case, which was brought up by the last Member for Cathcart, Captain John Hay, who paid more attention to his business than the present Member does? He brought up a case similar to this. The medical men said the man was perfectly fit, and yet he dropped down dead at his work in Cathcart, and a postmortem examination showed that the shrapnel in the back of the neck had gradually worked right on to the main nerve and killed him. I am sure the Minister would not like to think anyone is going about in danger of dropping down dead while the Ministry is refusing any responsibility.
I hope we shall come to this—that if a person is to have no pension then he has got to be given the reason for it in plain language. It has got to be a plain medical statement that can be understood by the lay mind. Let us have none of this "fottling," as we call it in Scot-land, because it is only footling when you get a number of words slung into a phrase, and you throw that at the poor man. I hope the Minister will see to it that in future we get a clearer, a plainer and more honourable method of dealing with these cases.

Mr. PILCHER: I am very sorry indeed to worry a much-harassed Minister with another of these stories of people who are suffering under the present administration, but there is a particular case which I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the Committee. I think it would probably come under Subhead E. I want to tell a plain, unvarnished story of a woman living in my constituency. I do not know what her party adhesion is; it does not interest me in the least. If I had had the experience of this woman I should be a Socialist or a Communist, I
should have developed extreme views, and that is why I want to ventilate this case.
6.0 P.M.
Mrs. Knott's husband was a member of the Royal Marines. He did his 21 years and 10 months' service, which finished in 1910. He got his long service pension and went into the Special Reserve, and did his drills to the satisfaction of everybody between 1910 and 1914. He was called to the Colours in 1914; he served right through the Mons campaign and got the Mons Star. After this, as he had previously had naval experience, he was sent to sea. In February, 1915, his ship was hit by a shell and he sustained a severe injury, and he was finally invalided home. In October or November, 1915, he was sent down to Falmouth and he did odd jobs for the Government in Falmouth Harbour. But all the time his heart was weakening, and I do not think that anybody who knew him would doubt that his death was due to the sufferings which he underwent in 1915 during the War. I know the Minister of Pensions has been very considerate in the discussion of this case and he has instituted every sort of inquiry, and it is simply a case of the rules working out unfairly and inequitably. This man worked on until January, 1924, but he gradually got physically weaker and he died in that year. Before that he had been in receipt of a special 30 per cent. disability pension in addition to his ordinary pension. His widow has made repeated applications, but the Minister is unable to give her any assistance at all.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this is a question which can hardly be raised upon this Vote.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has power to deal with this case. At any rate, he told me so the other day.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Minister has not the power to deal with such cases. Of course, if he has, then it is in order.

Sir G. HOHLER: I think he has.

Mr. PILCHER: I think the Minister has power to deal with this case, in view of what he said last night when he stated that although, technically, he may not have the power to give assistance in these
cases he is willing to take them into special consideration, and it is under the heading of Special Grants that I wish to raise this point. The position of this widow is that she has three children and they are dependent on the Falmouth Board of Guardians. I realise the difficulty of covering all these cases under the Regulations, but I would point out that her husband was a regular servant of the Government and her brothers gave their service in the Navy and one of them was killed. Therefore, they are an old Service family going back two or three generations, and now this unhappy widow is dependent upon the relief given to her by the board of guardians. I want to put this case as strongly as I can because I feel that it is one deserving special sympathy, and I am only afraid that there are quite a number of cases of this kind which do not come under the existing Regulations. I am not in favour of turning the whole pensions system upside down, and I voted against a proposal of that kind last night, but I do feel that there are these hard cases, and, in spite of the worries and troubles to which the Minister of Pensions has been subjected, I hope he will do all he can to meet this case.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I think an appeal of the kind which has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down ought to receive sympathetic consideration from the Government. A case I have brought forward is still awaiting a decision, and it is quite on a par with that which has been put forward by the hon. Member. It is the case of a man with 20 years' service. It is a very strong case, and the widow has been left with a family of three children under the very trying circumstances of the present time, and nothing has been done for her. Very urgent appeals have been made by my colleague and myself representing the City of Dundee, and we have been urged to bring this particular case before the right hon. Gentleman and the Ministry and the Parliamentary Secretary. The case itself has had a great deal of publicity in Dundee, and there deep-seated sympathy has been expressed throughout the community concerning this special case. As a matter of fact, we find that this case is typical of many that confront the Pensions Ministry in various parts of the country, and there should not be this tendency of a steadfast attitude
of submitting that in appeals of this kind no evidence is forthcoming directly attributing the cause of death to war service and then stating that nothing can be done. There ought to be at once an instruction to the Special Grants Committee to go into cases of this kind after such long service. In this case the man had a splendid record from the point of view of medals, of which we hear so much, but which are not a very tangible recognition of the needs of the family and very often we find them in such cases relegated to the pawn shop. Again you have the case of a man who went through the War and developed turberculosis after having surrendered a very valuable appointment, and he is left now with no recognition of his complete inability to follow his former occupation of a linotype operator in a journalistic establishment—to say that a man giving war service through the whole of the War and then to find his wife and family let down in this way and told that nothing can be done for her, viewed from the layman s point of view that is certainly not in accordance with the attitude adopted by those who advocated that the men should go to the War.
Some of us were opposed to the War and did our best publicly and privately to condemn it, but those who took up the work were sincerely imbued with the truth of the advocacy to which they listened. Whatever may be said of the individual representatives of the Ministry of Pensions on the Front Bench who give sym pathetic attention to these cases, I must say that there does seem to me to be a force behind the Ministry which remorselessly knocks out a man's case if it can be done at all, and there is a strong tendency towards laying down that unless there is the most clinching evidence these men do not succeed in obtaining recognition. I do not want it to be thought that I am unduly stating this case, but I know of many of these cases in which the men have been landed in a mental institution or a mental hospital. Some of these cases in Dundee are very striking indeed, and we have done our best to get the Ministry to deal with them, but I am sorry to say we cannot make any head way. I think we require a change of the general policy of the Ministry. I am credibly informed that some of the officials are so adamantine—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting rather away from the Vote before the Committee.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No doubt I am out of order, but I want to strike the bull's eye every time, and I earnestly hope that as the outcome of the appeals we have made in this House something will be done. We do feel that on occasions like this we have to state our case as well as we possibly can, and undoubtedly what the Pensions Ministry is now doing does not come up to what was promised during the War when these men were induced to take up their stand in that great struggle. It should not now be a case of having to prove that the illness was caused during the War, but the fact of long service having been given to the country ought to be sufficient. There is great need for emphasising the cases I am putting forward, about which the feeling is keen and very strong indeed, and we hope there will be a change for the better. If we cannot have a change of Government, at any rate let us have a change of policy in regard to the treatment of these men.

Sir G. HOHLER: I want to put a case before the Minister of Pensions. I do not associate myself with any of the criticisms implying that the Minister of Pensions is unkind or out of sympathy with these cases. The case I want to put is that of a widow who was in receipt of a pension and she married again, honestly believing that the man she married was either a widower or a bachelor. She received her small gratuity on re-marriage. It then transpired that the man had deceived her; he was a married man, and the marriage was bigamous. In these circumstances she applied to the Ministry of Pensions for restoration of her pension, of course making allowance for the gratuity she had received; but it was refused on the ground that she had had a gratuity. I think the Ministry has made a mistake. I know that in another case in which I was personally interested, and with which I dealt, we were able to prove by evidence that the mistake had been made—that the man was a married man, and had simply married the woman for the purpose of getting hold of the gratuity—and in these circumstances the pension was restored. I hope the Minister will agree with me that that is the ordinary
course in cases of this class. They are not very common.

Major CRAWFURD: I want to add my appeal to those which have been made by other Members, principally on two grounds. It is too late now to wish the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague to go back on the decision which was made last night, but I want to urge upon them that, within the borders of that decision and the declarations made by the right hon. Gentleman last night, and within the possibilities of the case as they exist to-day, they should make their administration as sympathetic as possible. I desire to refer to those cases which come under Sub-head N, which may, I believe, come within the purview of the Special Grants Committee—cases which I have myself brought before the Ministry, but in which I have been unsuccessful in getting relief. I do not even ask, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) asked, for consideration for hard cases not directly attributable to the War. That, perhaps, is impossible, but there are many other cases, such as I am sure all Members of the House have had before them. May I say that there is nothing I have experienced in connection with membership of the House of Commons that is more heartbreaking than dealing with these pensions cases? There is nothing more difficult or more wringing, or which makes it more difficult to try to carry out our duties as Members of Parliament.
There are certain cases which, while outside the strict letter of the regulations, are yet terribly hard cases, which should be given special treatment. The first that comes to my mind is the case of a woman who was not married to the man concerned but that is by the way: she lived with him as though she were married, they had several children, she kept his home, she kept his children for many years. Then he was injured in the War, and secured a pension, with allowances for the children, and the household was kept up. Suddenly one day he left home and disappeared. About a month later he came back, and then went away again and killed himself. The letter of the Regulations says that this woman was not entitled to a pension, although she had been recognised as being equivalent to the man's wife. According to the
Regulations she was not entitled to a pension because technically he had not supported her up to the day of his death, although in fact he had supported her until he went away, and for all practical purposes he had done so until he died. I failed, in spite of every effort, to get relief in that case.
Then there is another case of a more unusual kind—the case of a young woman whom I saw only about 10 days ago, who in 1914 was engaged to be married to a young man. Then the War came. Their wedding had actually been arranged, and she was wearing an engagement ring. They consulted together and they said: "A lot of our friends are rushing into matrimony, but we, on the whole, think it would be prudent not to do this until we see what the result of this War is in our case"; and for four years, until the end of the War, these two waited. The man was injured. They got married after he had been discharged, and there were two children. Then he developed some complaint directly attributable to his war service, and died. She is now a widow, and I think the only reason why she is not drawing a pension to-day is because, unlike a lot of others, she did not rush into further responsibilities, but took what was, if not a very heroic course, at least a prudent and cautious course, from the best motives, and waited until after the War. The fact that she was not married until after the man's discharge leaves her and her children dependent on the guardians.
Then there is the case of a man from whom I had a letter only two days ago. I have brought his case before the Ministry, but, under the letter of the Regulations, it has been turned down. This man for seven years or more has been steadily getting worse in health. He is known by many people to have a perfectly good character, and has been struggling to keep at work, but finally he had to give up from sheer weariness. Now he has gone beyond the time limit, and his case, like others, is refused. I am only quoting these as typical cases. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, without departing from the decision he made last-night, to make his administration as sympathetic as possible in these hard cases. I should like to add one word to what was said by an hon. Member on the Labour Benches. I am bound to say that in my dealings with the Ministry of Pensions I
have always had every consideration and every courtesy. I recognise the difficulties of the doctors, though I do think it would be better if greater consideration were given to the declared and written opinions of local medical men when they come into conflict with the opinions of doctors appointed by the Ministry, who, from the very nature of the case, can obviously only have a cursory knowledge of the history of the cases they are examining. A man who has been the family doctor for 10 or 12 years, who has known the case before the War, and who, we must assume, is acting honestly—and, at any rate, it is open to a Member of Parliament to make such inquiries as he can—the opinion of a doctor of that kind should, I think, be given greater weight than is the case at present.
There is one other matter connected with the action of the Ministry which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look into himself. I had a case a little while ago where a man who had had a final award wished to appeal against it, but he did not come to me for my help until after the period of one year had elapsed. That is the most difficult case of all to take up, except, perhaps, the one where an appeal has been heard and rejected. This man had been ill. It is true that a Regulation was issued at a certain stage laying down that appeals could only be heard within one year of the final award, and that Regulation was supposed to be made known to possible pensioners by the ordinary method of advertising in the local newspapers or putting up a notice on the doors of the town hall. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of some of the circumstances in the poorer parts of this country, and in London particularly, it is perfectly ludicrous to suppose that a Regulation communicated in that way really reaches the people it affects. My poorer constituents do not look on the door of the town hall, and do not read the local Press.
This man was ill in bed at the time when this Regulation came out, and for most of the time he was away from home. Then, when I myself accompanied him—he was allowed to have assistance in presenting his case—to the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal in the Strand, a representative of the Ministry was there, and, when the representative of the
Ministry was asked if he had anything to say about the case, he simply drew the attention of the Tribunal to this Regulation about the period of 12 months. It does seem to me to be wrong, when an appeal is being made from the Ministry of Pensions to another Tribunal, that the Ministry should have the power to put in a word which practically forejudges the decision of the Tribunal. In that case, all the representative of the Ministry did was simply to say, "I draw the attention of the Tribunal to this Regulation," and the appeal was dismissed straight away. I quite realise the immense difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is faced when he is asked to re-open whole classes of cases, but I do ask him to try to give special consideration to special cases of hardship that are brought to him and vouched for, and, above all, I would ask him to see that, during his term of office, the warm heart and ready sympathetic consideration that were hoped for and were promised to these men six or seven years ago shall not deteriorate into a too rigid adherence to rules and Regulations.

Major GLYN: I hope that when the Minister conies to reply he will be able to give some information as to Sub-head O6—Medical Treatment of Disabled Officers, Nurses and Men—which shows an increase on account of there being more men requiring treatment than was expected. I think this Debate has shown that there is agreement in every quarter of the Committee as to the great courtesy and consideration shown by the Minister and his officials, and I should like to follow the example of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), and try to keep away from particular cases, because I think we ought to try to deal more with the principles upon which things are managed by the Ministry. In regard to institutional treatment, we all know that the lunacy laws of this country are in sore need of reform, and I trust that that will be one of the Measures which will be considered by His Majesty's Government. Cases have come to my knowledge of ex-service men who have found themselves in public institutions for people not of normal habit of mind, and, on inquiring into those cases, I have found on each occasion that there was very little behind the accusations which were brought against the Ministry in regard to not taking proper
care of the men who found themselves in those circumstances. At the same time, I think there is a special duty upon Parliament to see that the lunacy laws are overhauled at no very distant date. As long as they remain as they are at present—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): It would not be in order to enter into a discussion of the Lunacy Laws on this Vote.

Major GLYN: In regard to institutional treatment, for which this extra amount is required, it does cover cases in which the Ministry of Pensions is concerned with men qualified for pensions who find themselves in lunatic asylums. The last point I want to make is that I think a great deal more good could be done for the pensioners if the Ministry could devise some method of making known to the men themselves what are their chances if they choose to avail themselves of institutional treatment. I have come across many men who were not aware that, by making application in the proper way, they could get this treatment. It may be that in certain parts of the country the organisation of the Ministry for advertising the facilities afforded is not so good as in others, but I hope the Minister will direct his attention to seeing that all men who would benefit by the treatment which the Ministry provides are made aware of the fact that they can get such treatment.

Mr. KELLY: I want to refer to a side of the case that I think the last speaker was intending to reach. I would ask the Minister to pay regard to those men who have refrained from making claims because of their dislike to coming on the Pension Fund, and who at some late period have found themselves in the position that they have had to resort to medical treatment, and afterwards have probably had to enter some institution. I know of such a case where a man, who throughout his whole life was what one would consider quite normal, as a result of all he went through on responding to the call the country made, was affected in such a way that they were compelled to remove him to an institution. Owing to the claim not being made in good time, owing to someone, I am not sure whether a
medical man or not, having stated this was not due to the service he had rendered, his wife is denied anything from the Pensions Ministry. I would ask that not only should the medical advice, but the record of the man, even in the days prior to the War service, be taken into account, and, even if there is doubt the man should have the benefit of it. I hope the Minister in considering these cases, particularly those who have had to have institutional treatment, will see that pensions are given. There are many that have come under my own observation. I have had to communicate with the Ministry upon some of them. I hope in the future, despite the limitations of the Regulations, the Minister will take a more generous view than he has taken up to the present. We did not have any limitations when we asked the men to go out, and I think their families ought to have the treatment they deserve from the country by reason of the service these men rendered us.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It may seem a bit strange that I should be here to-day appealing on behalf of ex-service men in regard to the item for special grants. I who did all I possibly could to keep men from going to the War, and I would do the same again. Here we have case after case and Member after Member putting cases forward from every side of the House to the Minister, who has a heart of stone. There are no two ways about that. There is no feeling there. If there was any of the milk of human kindness left in the Minister of Pensions, after the time he has been in the job, and the manner in which he has handled the job he has sucked all that milk of human kindness out of him in order that he might draw his £5,000 a year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not make those imputations.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have just received a notification from the Minister as to a very sad case which I talked over and reasoned over with him, and I might as well have appealed to Old Nick—[Interruption]—the devil, that is who he is—for any good result that came of my negotiations. It is true the right hon. Gentleman met me as a gentleman so to speak. Shakespeare says,
 That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain 
all the while—and there he sits. He can laugh if he likes, and he can have all the backing of the Tories behind him, though I am certain he has not, but there are children and there are women in this country to-night who are cursing the Minister of Pensions because of the inhuman manner in which he is dealing with cases.
To come to my own special case. In Dalmuir we have a great shipbuilding yard which rendered yeoman service to this great Empire, not only in sending soldiers to the Front, against all my wishes, but also in producing the finest machines of war that the world has ever seen. One of these men, a painter, was not satisfied with doing his bit at Dalmuir. He voluntarily enlisted. He was going to blow the Germans out of the Rhine. They are not blown out yet. He left his wife, like many another man, and lined up with the British Army in order to defend her against the Huns. We told him at the time that the greatest Huns our common people ever had were the employing and financial class of Great Britain. We are proving it here to-day right up to the hilt. This man was none of your conscripts, none of your Derby men. He was past his prime, he was not a young man; yet, in order to drill him up, they gave him some exercises to do, and in doing them he strained his back, which rendered him unfit for active service. He went back to his work as a painter and struggled on, just as the working-class always do. Had he been a fly member of the ruling class, had he been a wealthy man, a doctor would have been in attendance to see what was the matter, but, being one of a hardy, intelligent race, he struggled on at his work, hoping against hope that he would get better soon and that his native air would renew him. But such was not the case, because now he is unable to do anything. He is practically paralysed. I have visited his home myself. He still believes this was a war to end war. He is not a Socialist, but a patriot, who believes the Tory party mean what they say. He does not realise, as I do, that they are liars, and have deceived the working classes. [Interruption.] It is quite Parliamentary. I have taken the highest legal opinion on it. The Tories need not run away with the idea that I am making statements I have not pre-
pared. They have been gone into very carefully, so that I am fully armed.
The man could hardly walk across the floor. He has a typical wife and two little boys. The house is scrupulously clean. It is a single apartment house 12 feet by 10 feet. He fought to protect his wife and children from the Germans coming and stealing his single apartment. Here you have the Minister turning down such a case. His wife is working the very flesh off her fingers in order that her children may have a better chance in life than their parents had. I appealed personally to the Minister. I got a statement made out by the Painters' Organisation, which has done everything it could to assist this woman in her struggle not to go into the Poor House. That is all that is in front of them. If there be anything the Tory Government have done that I detest them for more than anything else it is that they have brought a number of my race, the Scottish race, down to the extent that they are glad to accept parish relief. It never occurred in the history of Scotland until the War. That is one of the things Scotland has to thank you and your class for, reducing the numbers of people whose fathers and mothers would have died rather than accept parish relief. Here are men who offered their lives in the War. They can get nothing.
The Minister of Pensions, of course, is of all men the most reasonable. He reasons with you. He is quite nice. In fact, I want to take you into my confidence, Captain FitzRoy. I am beginning to notice that that is a feature of the Tory Government. They are all playing that game, from the Prime Minister down wards. They are all being, oh! so nice and so amenable to reason. But it is results that we want. We do not want them to be nice to us. I was not sent here to be nice to the Ministers on that bench. I was sent here, and so was every Member on these benches, including our ex-Prime Minister and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that we might fight the Tory party and not be nice to them. They are very nice to us, but how are they acting towards our people outside? How are the ex-service men faring at the moment? Is the right hon. Gentleman nice and pleasant with them? Yesterday, I listened hour after hour to Members from all quarters
of the House making appeals to the Minister of Pensions. One would think that we were appealing for some other species altogether; that it was not for men, women and little children we were appealing, but for an entirely different species. Nothing is done for them. We get no satisfaction. We get a nice pleasant smile, but
 one may smile, and smile, and be a villain 
all the while. We do not want smiles, we do not want the Minister to be nice with us in that way. If the matter rested with me, if I considered that I had played my part like a man, and if the Government or anybody else stood betwixt my wife and children and the means of life, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, "I would have your life, Sir, or you would have mine."
It is time this Tory Government and this Ministry of Pensions did something. It is time the Minister of Pensions dropped this bland smile of his and did something definitely on behalf of the ex-service men. What was enacted yesterday on the Floor of the British House of Commons? We had a man who was maimed and crippled in the War, a Tory Member of Parliament, who is not able to stand on his feet and has to remain seated. He stated the case on behalf of the ex-service men, and yet we had the spectacle of a Tory Minister giving that man a telling off. That is what happened here yesterday. I do not know what the British Legion will have to say about it. Personally, I do not care the snap of my finger for the British Legion, but it is the men who are in the British Legion for whom I care. The British Legion got a telling off here yesterday from the Minister of Pensions. There are no two ways about that.
I do not know what constituency is represented by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the British Legion yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fairfield!"] The hon. and gallant Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen), of all the places in the world! He is a Tory and he sat in his seat yesterday—he tried to rise—and appealed to the Minister. He appealed on behalf of the ex-service men. He was appealing for special consideration, and he was answered by an old debating trick. I
told the Minister, "You are being congratulated, because you are a very clever debater, but I would be ashamed of myself to score a point in Debate at the expense of men who risked their lives." Many of them were actually compelled to risk their lives for the country, and this is the way they are treated—by the right hon. Gentleman scoring a debating point over the hon. Member who was appealing for the ex-service men. Had it been the widow of General Maude there would have been no appeal required. The Government gave her £30,000, but for the common Tommies' wife—" damn you all." That is what they get. They get nothing but abuse. They are treated as though they belonged to another species.
The Government on the one hand are ladling out thousands of pounds to certain individuals, but when it comes to our own people, the common people, the people on whom the British Empire rests, the people without whom the country cannot exist, the people who went to war for the country, the people who made it possible for this great Empire to be carried on, they are of no account. I say to the Minister of Pensions, "If I were you and I could do no better, I would clear out of the business." I say, before my Maker, that if I were unable to foot the bill I would not accept £5,000 a year. I would be big enough and man enough to come to the House and tell the House that the rules and regulations connected with the Ministry of Pensions are of such a character that it is impossible for me to do justice. Had I been in the Labour Ministry, that is what I would have done. I do not exempt the Labour Ministry any more than anyone else.
The time has arrived for us to act and to do something to defend these women and children who have lost their breadwinners, or whose breadwinner has been disabled. Think of what was promised to the men when they went to the War. When the men stood side by side with me and I appealed to them not to go to the War, they said: "It is our country, we are all comrades, and it is our duty to go." The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said: "When the War is over, take it from me, Kirkwood, I will use all my influence with the ruling classes of this country to see that never again, as far as
this country can secure it, will anyone know what want is." Here we are to-day appealing not for ourselves but for women and children, and for the men who, rightly or wrongly—they believed they were right—were prepared to make the supreme sacrifice to defend their native land. And this is the way they are being treated.
Others may appeal to the Minister of Pensions. I will not. I will doff my cap to him no more. I have done everything that is humanly possible in order to appeal to that man, and it has been absolutely of no avail. Therefore, I will tell the ex-service men that they need expect nothing. I will create such an atmosphere, so far as I am able, throughout the country so that never again will they go to war. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember the phrase, "No trade with Germany, never again." You are a lot of frauds. I will tell the ex-service men that if we are to go to war, we will go to war against you fellows. You are the only enemies my country ever had, and I tell you—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can cut me off if you like.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I am sure that I am speaking for every hon. Member on these benches when I say that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) expressed views with which we completely agree. If hon. Members opposite would say the truth that is in their hearts they would say that, at any rate, on the question of the injustice now being done to the ex-service men he was expressing their views also. The particular sub-head with which I wish to deal is K1. I agree, and I think everyone in the Committee will agree, that at least £800,000 is necessary for the purpose mentioned, in providing pensions, gratuities and allowances to disabled seamen, disabled warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men; but I am not satisfied as to whether that very inadequate sum is being properly apportioned among the cases most in need. I am sure that it is not meeting all the cases of need. I am in doubt as to whether very serious cases, cases more serious than the average in some districts, are being adequately dealt with.
I suppose it would be out of order in this Debate to discuss the decisions of the appeal tribunals, and I will not attempt to do that, but I do complain that the Minister of Pensions should ask us to provide under this sub-head an extra £800,000 and give us such little information regarding the treatment meted out by the appeal tribunals in the various districts where they work. I have every reason to suspect that the tribunal in the district where my constituency lies does not meet to anything like the same extent as do other tribunals the serious cases.

Major TRYON: On a point of Order. There is no money in this Vote for the tribunals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member said that it would not be in order for him to deal with the appeal tribunals, and that he did not intend to do so. I hope he will confine himself to questions more particularly concerned with the Vote.

Mr. HUDSON: What I wish to point out is that information regarding the decisions in cases that have been dealt with by the tribunals, and which ultimately lead to the payment of this money, is not forthcoming, and I was about to suggest to the Minister that in some memorandum issued by the Ministry we ought to be informed for the various districts in which these decisions are made what are the total grants that have been allowed. If that were done, hon. Members who come from the district where my constituency is situated, and probably other hon. Members, would criticise much more vigorously the Minister of Pensions than they have done hitherto.
7.0 P.M.
There is a further point, regarding the presentation of the cases which come before the appeal tribunals. The Ministry of Pensions always takes a line against the applicants who put their cases forward. The Ministry does not regard itself in any sense as representing the applicant. The applicant stands on one side and the Ministry of Pensions is opposed to the applicant. There is no association of friendliness between the applicant and the Ministry, who ought to be responsible, in the long run, for the welfare of these men. The Ministry regards it to be its sole duty to hold off the applicant from the relief
and the pension that he is claiming. I believe that leads to a very evil state of things. Some of the applicants' cases are very badly presented. It may be that in some instances they are not members of the British Legion. I know that in my district the British Legion helps a considerable number of cases to be presented well when finally they come before the appeal tribunals, but in some cases men have fallen out of membership. They have not got friends to help them to present their case, and, if the Ministry of Pensions stands opposed to them as an enemy when their cases are presented before the tribunal, it is very likely that entirely inadequate treatment will be the result. I wish that there could be some modification in the attitude of the Ministry regarding that procedure before the appeal tribunals.
With regard to Sub-head N—Payments under the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee to dependants and families of non-commissioned officers and men—I see the statement on the Paper is that the expenditure in connection with Children's Education Allowance is proving larger than was anticipated. I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen on the other side very frequently make mistakes in their anticipations regarding what is necessary for the education of working-class families. I wish they could realise completely the needs of some of the cases which I have had brought to my attention recently to meet the cost, for instance, of secondary education. You cannot get effective maintenance of a boy in a secondary school when you are paying to his widowed mother, for her maintenance and the maintenance of two children besides, only a little in excess of £2. That is all that is given for the whole of the upbringing of the family. I have recently brought to the attention of the Ministry a case of one of my constituents, a very decent woman who lost her husband in the War, whose 11-year-old son has proved himself perfectly capable, who has received very high commendations from his teachers in the elementary schools, and who has gone forward to a secondary school. In order that he may be educated at that secondary school, the mother has gone out to work to supplement the payment that the Ministry of pensions is making.
Is it the policy of the Ministry that in all cases mothers must supplement their pensions when it comes to the time for a capable son to go into the secondary school, or is it their view—they ought to state it frankly—that the pension is inadequate to keep a boy at a secondary school and pay the extra costs which are involved in the education of a child in that situation? Unfortunately, we have not yet got adequate maintenance grants in connection with our secondary school system, and another department of the Government is doing very little to see that these adequate maintenance grants are provided. This is essential, because if a son of an ex-service man killed in the War comes to secondary school age, and wins a scholarship of an average value, something additional will be necessary to maintain him while he is in a secondary school. I cannot understand why a general rule is not made to cover all these cases, and to make the additional grant to these children without any further inquiry being necessary. I am quite sure, however, that the £10,000 that is here named will nothing like cover the cases that come before the Ministry, and I hope that some radical modification of the regulations with regard to this may be effected in the immediate future.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I did not mean to intervene in this Debate, but I really think that some of the speeches which have been made by the hon. Members of the Socialist party opposite require an answer. After hearing the last speech but one, from an hon. Member who told the Committee that he would prevent other men from fighting, I think any criticism with regard to the treatment of ex-service men comes with very bad force from a man who is reduced to such arguments. If the case of the ex-service men was to be left in the hands of those gentlemen, it would be a very sad day for the ex-service men of this country. I have taken part in this House in oriticising the Ministry of Pensions. Many of us would like to see many things altered. We have to remember that it is an enormous organisation, and that it is extremely difficult for an organisation like that to run smoothly.
Many things have been said with regard to different cases. Let me take one case which especially acts very hardly on the ex-service man, the case
of tuberculosis. A man for instance goes out to the trenches, contracts bronchitis in the trenches, comes back to this country, and three or four years later develops tuberculosis. He then goes before an Appeal Tribunal, and his claim is disallowed because the medical men find that his tuberculosis has not been caused or aggravated by the war. This House cannot blame the Ministry of Pensions for that. That is outside the scope of the Ministry of Pensions, and is in the hands purely and simply of the medical men alone. With regard to another class of case where a man has exceeded the time limit, I should like to tell the Committee that I have made many applications to the Minister of Pensions to get these cases reopened, and almost without a single exception he has had those cases reopened for me. Another Member said, "It is the time to do something; nothing has been done." I would like to ask him what the Socialist party, of which he is an advocate, did when they were in office. What did they do?

Mr. MAXTON: That is no argument. That cuts no ice with us. That argument is as dead as a dodo.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

Mr. BUCHANAN: He asked a question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Speeches made on that side of the House were listened to quite quietly. I hope that Members on that side will give an equally quiet hearing to Members on this side.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There would have been no interruption if the hon. Member had not proceeded to ask questions It is always the custom in the country where I come from to answer questions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the custom in this House to answer questions across the Floor.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If he is going to ask us questions, we should not be reprimanded for answering questions he has asked.

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, it is within the Rules of Order that a relevant statement may be made. I have noticed, in the official records of this House, that practically every one of the great Par-
liamentary figures in the past is represented as having made similar statements in the course of the Debates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The custom of putting questions across the Floor of the House is becoming much too usual. It is my intention to put a stop to it, as far as I can.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the practice of the House? As far as I can see, looking at previous Debates, it is not an increasing but a decreasing practice, as compared with the past.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will help further to decrease it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Further, with regard to this point of Order. Am I wrong in supposing that it is the duty of the Members here to safeguard those traditional rights of the Members of the House of Commons in this respect?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I did not quite understand the hon. Member's question.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry I did not make it plain. The point I wish to put before you is that this right of Members, to make such interruptions to a speech in order to elicit a point, has been one of the safeguards, one of the rights, belonging to Members of the House of Commons. Is it not the duty of every Member to safeguard this right of the House of Commons to elicit points when a Member is speaking?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no right of Members of the House of Commons to interrupt another speaker.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I did not intend to put my query as a question. I say that during the Socialist term of office they did nothing whatsoever to help the ex-service men, notwithstanding all their promises throughout the country.

Mr. MAXTON: That cuts no ice.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: We have been told that we take no interest in ex-service men. Speaking as a member of the British Legion, I know what ex-service men think. I know that during the last six or nine months there has been a distinct improvement in the administration of pensions throughout the
country. I have dealt with 30,000 cases before the appeal tribunal, and I can speak with bigger authority than any Socialist on those benches. I say that there is a far better feeling, a far better spirit, among the ex-service men with regard to their pensions to-day than there has been up to the present time. It is always an extremely easy thing for those who are out of power to criticise those who are in power. I am not saying that there are not hundreds of very hard cases throughout the country, but it is not fair, because there are those cases, when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of men, to pile abuse on the head of the Minister of Pensions. for not being able to ride through the Regulations and do acts which he is precluded from doing by the Regulations. I simply want to make the statement that during the last six or nine months, at any rate in my area, the North Western area, there is a far better spirit prevailing.

Miss WILKINSON: I just want to raise three practical points on these Estimates. The first is to ask the Minister whether he can give his personal consideration to the problem of those cases where it is a question whether the death arose out of illness or disablement due to the War. I refer to a class of case that is becoming increasingly frequent—the cases of soldiers in mental hospitals who die from pneumonia. I understand that it is a well-known fact that many people in mental hospitals do not die because of their mental trouble, but die technically from pneumonia. On the medical man's death certificate pneumonia is stated as the cause of death. I have knowledge of a case where a widow has been refused a pension on the ground that, pneumonia being a disease that comes rapidly and is rapidly fatal, obviously it could not possibly have arisen out of the War. I ask the Minister to give such cases further consideration, especially when the doctor states that a man's power of resistance to disease has been lowered by war service.
There is another class of sad cases, in which men have developed rheumatism since the War. There are the cases of men who went into the Army as Al, were discharged perhaps as fit, and went to work, and because of the difficulties of
unemployment went on working as long as they could before they saw a doctor. Perhaps two years or more elapsed, and the men were actually suffering during all that time. I have a case also of a tuberculous patient in my constituency. He did everything he could to hide the fact that he was suffering from that disease, because he was afraid that if he revealed his trouble he would "get the sack," and his wife and children would starve. Now after his death she has been refused a pension because her husband was not under doctor's orders during the time. The reply that I got from the Ministry was that I must bring other evidence to show that the man was actually suffering during that time. The only evidence possible was the evidence of the widow and of men who, having worked with the man, knew that he suffered from a hacking cough. The Minister has not regarded this evidence as sufficient. I do not want to plead individual cases here, for this is not the place to deal with them. But these are not so much individual cases as cases of a general type, and I ask the Minister to consider them as general cases.
With reference to Sub-head O 6, I want to call attention to something that is being very much neglected, and that is the question of nurses' pensions. There were numbers of women who went through the terrible conditions of the War and who never will be physically the same as they were. They have now gone into hospitals to work. They have tried to carry on the extraordinarily hard work of ordinary general hospitals and they are breaking down. It is very difficult for these nurses to get pensions, allowances or even institutional treatment, because they have been at work since the War, apparently in good health. Yet their doctors say that their health has been undermined because of the terrible war conditions, and that, but for those conditions, they would now be perfectly healthy. Personally, as far as the staff of the Ministry are concerned, I have always found them extremely anxious to help, but I do find that somehow or other nurses are not considered as part of the War to the same extent as others. I ask the Minister to give his personal consideration to this question of the breakdown of nurses.

Major TRYON: I would like to reply first to the speech which has just been delivered, because the hon. Member set an example, which was not followed in every case by members on the benches behind her, in putting her case moderately, courteously, and with an obvious desire to make suggestions of a helpful nature.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it within the province of the Minister of Pensions to deliver lectures on etiquette to Members sitting on this side of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order arising from that.

Mr. MAXTON: Does it come within this Estimate?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Minister has been attacked considerably during the course of the Debate, and it is only reasonable that he should reply.

Major TRYON: I thought the Committee would not object to my thanking an hon. Member of another party for the way in which she put her case. I do not understand the sensitiveness of certain people who show no consideration whatever for the feelings of anyone else. I will proceed to deal with the points that have been raised. May I say generally to all Members who have mentioned individual cases, that I hope they will send the names, the regimental numbers and particulars, so that I may deal with them. We shall, of course, be very happy to go into the cases, and I hope the Committee will not pronounce judgment on any of them merely on the information already given, because sometimes there are two sides to these cases, and the two sides may possibly not be known to the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. HARDIE: The cases with which I dealt are the cases which the Minister has had in his hands. The same thing has happened with the Minister of Labour. Ministers say, "Send me the particulars." They have the particulars of all the cases.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It was the same in my case.

Major TRYON: A point raised early in the Debate was about the reduction under Subhead K2 for treatment and
training allowances. If hon. Members will look at the last part of the Estimate they will see that it is because in another part of the Vote there is a very large increase in pensions that there is lees money required for this treatment allowance. In other words, it is because the pensions are higher that the amount under the heading of treatment is less. The amounts must be compared together. The pensions have increased by £800,000, whereas the decrease is £83,000 under this Subhead. Obviously there is a very large net gain on pensions. Moreover, on the opposite page, under medical treatment of disabled officers and men, we are providing an additional £216,000. Therefore, taking the question as a whole, there has been a large increase under this head. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who spoke first, spoke of a training centre. That centre is not part of the Ministry of Pensions and, therefore, I cannot reply at once, but I shall be happy to go into the point that was raised. The individual ease which the hon. Member raised, I understand is being dealt with at Edinburgh. I shall, however, be happy to ascertain what are the causes of the delay which he alleges in this case.
The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sunderland (Major Sir A. Sinclair) raised the question of the Scotland Region, but as it is a matter of policy and questions are raised which really come under the next Estimate, it is not in my power to reply now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is one of those Members of the House who, although not in agreement with us on every point, is doing his best to help us by serving on the Central Advisory Committee of the Ministry, The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) put the medical point of view in a speech which was of very great value, because it showed not only how difficult is the task of medical officers to deal with these questions, but it also brought home to the Committee the obvious desire of the whole medical profession to deal fairly with cases of assessment and with pensions questions generally. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised a point about delays over medical boards. If he will send me particulars I shall be very happy to go into the matter. Another hon. Member raised a question about which I was not very
clear. If it was about need pensions it would be the case that the parent who was unable to work would thereby have a better chance of putting forward a claim. There is no time limit for the putting forward of these claims. Therefore, no doubt, what was mentioned by the hon. Member will be considered.
The hon. Member also raised the question of education. Among the first questions which I hope to put to the new Central Advisory Committee in London, when we meet soon, will be this question of education. It is becoming increasingly important, because the children are growing up. I can assure hon. Members that it is one of the problems that we shall consider when the Advisory Committee meets. I am sure that in that, as in other matters, we shall be helped by the fact that there will be more women members on that Committee. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) put forward an individual case which I understand he intends to send to me. We will go into the case. The senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) will, I am sure, forgive me when I say that I cannot agree with the attack which he made on the staff of the Ministry. The staff are conducting an extremely difficult task. Taking into account all sections and degrees of male workers in this country, I think there would be no occupation where there is such a large proportion of ex-service men. I am sure that everyone will agree that, whether they are ex-service men or not, the staff are doing their level best for the pensioners. Of course, I do not complain of attacks on myself, because attacks should be made on the Minister and not on the staff. The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) mentioned a case which I hope he will send to me. The hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) mentioned the case of a man who was away from his wife owing to illness. If he will send me that case I shall be happy to inquire into it.
The other points with which I would like to deal are the following. Some of the speakers fell into the error of regarding individual cases as typical. We have had 17 or 18 speeches, and most Members have raised one or two points. When it is remembered that those benefiting from the work of the Ministry number about 2,000,000, it will be realised that, so far
from these cases being typical, they are really exceptional, and that is probably within the knowledge of the Members who raised them. If anyone had been sitting in the Gallery of this House, not knowing what this Debate was about, and had heard Member after Member asking us to spend more, I do not think it would be realised that this is a Debate on a proposal to provide, on a Vote of £67,000,000, an additional £1,500,000 for pensions. I hope the Committee will now give us a Vote which is conspicuous in that the money goes to the maimed and the sick rather than to the cost of administration. The Committee will realise that we are doing our best and that if there have been mistakes in estimating it is because we had not properly calculated how much we should require for the present year.

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman has extended a general invitation to Members to send him particulars of cases. Does that invitation include cases which have already been before the Ministry?

Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to reply to my questions, but I think in consequence of interruptions he forgot to deal with certain of my points. There is, for example, the question of the mental cases, to which I should like a reply.

Major TRYON: The hon. Member will not expect me to give a decision on that point. I listened to the hon. Member's statement and I only want to say now, that I quite appreciate the point she was making in reference to pneumonia among mental patients in institutions. I have also noted her point with reference to the nurses. If she will send me any observations which she has to make on the subject of the nurses, which will enable me to go more fully into the matter, I shall be happy to do so. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd), I do not mean to suggest that any question which has been previously put to the Ministry is not to be put again. All I mean is that Members will not, I hope, expect me to reply in a Debate on individual cases and that it is better to send me such cases.

Mr. MAXTON: The Minister seems to have a completely mistaken notion of his functions and the functions of private
Members. He seems to think that it ought to be regarded by us as a privilege and pleasure to run on little errands for his Department and whenever a fault is alleged against the Ministry his reply is "Bring it to me." But the fact that such complaints come to us at all, shows that throughout the country among ex-service men there is complete dissatisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Do not let us become heated about it. Let us be quite cool. There is an unemployment insurance scheme under the Ministry of Labour; there is an old age pension scheme; there is now a widows' pension scheme, and there is the health insurance scheme. My post bag contains, perhaps once in six months, a case affecting old age pensions or health insurance administration; a little more frequently perhaps there are cases concerning unemployment insurance, but scarcely a day passes without communications from ex-service men about unfair treatment.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: The hon. Member is unfortunate.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, my constituency is a working-class constituency, and it has a very poor population who are being very hardly hit, but there must be something wrong when the Ministry officials are not able to satisfy the just and legitimate claims of these ex-service men. None of us would grumble, if it was only a matter of an occasional case of unfairness or an isolated instance of a sense of injustice, but we know, and hon. Members opposite know, that this feeling of injustice is so general that Members of the House cannot possibly, if they are to do their duty to their constituents, make themselves extra unpaid officials to the Minister in the matter. It is the duty of the Ministry to satisfy the big proportion of the claims of these ex-service men and to remove the feeling of injustice in the minds of these men. Whether that feeling is rightly or unfairly there, it is the first duty of the Minister and his officials to have it removed. It is not being removed and it is not decreasing. It is, on the contrary, very widespread.
I know that this Supplementary Estimate asks for an increase of the total amount originally estimted and we would all be glad to vote that extra money, but the Minister did not point out that this additional Estimate is necessary because
the previous year's Estimate was cut down by over £3,000,000. During 1925–26 the Minister estimated he would require £3,000,000 less. There is a steady deliberate policy on the part of the Ministry to make pensions a diminishing charge on the country. It is not necessary for any hon. Member to tell us that there is a natural shrinkage owing to deaths and owing to children becoming of age and self-supporting. It is quite obvious that there is also a definite pressure to press economy beyond the proportions which natural shrinkage would justify. The officials of the Ministry themselves have been pushed by the hard circumstances of the case into giving away in this Estimate some of the economy ground which they were trying to make, but they are still pressing too far their attempts to reduce the Ministry of Pensions Estimates.
Considering the treatment which you have given your Italian Allies in regard to the payment of their debt; considering the treatment you have given to your American Allies in regard to the payment of our debt to them; considering the treatment which the Government have given to their late enemies the Germans, I say you have not treated the ex-servicemen who fought their War with the same generosity as that which you have extended to your late Allies and your late enemies. A period of 70 or 75 years is the period during which the Allies are to be allowed to liquidate their responsibilities. If the policy of last year is carried out in regard to pensions, it will wipe out the whole responsibility of the country to the ex-service men in 20 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am taking your own figures. If, from a total expenditure of £60,000,000, you go on taking £3,000,000 per year, you will run it down to nothing at the end of 20 years.
I want to raise one point of detail under the Sub-heading 06 where an increase of £216,000 is shown in regard to medical treatment of disabled officers, nurses and men. That increase occurs under a heading, in connection with which there has been a decrease of 12,000 in the number of patients treated as between this year and last year. This year 12,000 fewer persons are being treated by the Ministry, in all classes, than were treated in the previous year. The total is something like 48,000 so there has been a reduction of 25 per cent. in
the number of cases treated. Yet there is the considerable increase of £216,000 in the cost. Why has it cost nearly a quarter of a million more to treat 12,000 fewer patients? If it is because we are giving better treatment and placing higher skill at the disposal of these patients then I say, "Good !" If it is because we are giving better treatment allowances I say, "Good !" If it is because we are giving them better food, housing and nursing then I say "Good!" But if it is due to sheer extravagance, carelessness and stupidity then I say, "Very bad indeed." Further, what about the number of limbless men who are perpetually coming back to the Ministry for treatment? What has induced the Ministry to cut out British firms from the list of those supplying artificial limbs? Why should there be, instead of 14 firms as in the previous year, only two in the present year—both foreign firms?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That matter does not come within this Vote at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is surely worth being noted.

Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Sir, that if a man, through having been provided with an unsuitable limb, is thrown back into hospital—as happens in Scotland, where there is one hospital, the Erskine Home, devoted almost entirely to limbless men—and if his wound breaks out again, then those cases come definitely under this Sub-heading 06 and account for some proportion of this increase. It seems to me appalling that the Ministry of Pensions under this "Buy British Goods" Government—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to discuss this matter upon the present Vote. It clearly does not arise under this Vote at all and is separate altogether from the particular service with which we are dealing.

Mr. MAXTON: I like to obey your ruling, Sir. I do not wish to come into opposition with you in any way, and I prefer to get through a speech without bringing you to your feet, because I know you do not like it, but I think, on this point, considering the latitude that has
been taken by the Minister himself—you remember the right hon. Gentleman's sermon upon etiquette, and upon how to become a perfect little gentleman, addressed to some members of the Opposition—it is a pretty tight ruling to bar me from talking about this very grave scandal. The Minister knows the facts as they exist, and why there should be any objection to the matter being raised, I do not know.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure the hon. Member does not accuse me of desiring to prevent him from raising any question which he might properly raise, and I am sure he will support me in carrying out my duty which is to keep the discussion to the actual Vote before the Committee.

Mr. MAXTON: I return to the point which I was originally raising under Sub-heading O 6, in accordance with the very strict limits which you, Sir, have laid down, and I again ask: "What is the reason for an extra £216,000, to meet the needs of a greatly reduced total of patients?

Mr. LAWSON: The Minister of Pensions, in his closing remarks, pointed out that we were discussing here, not a reduction of the Estimate, but an increase, and we say to him, from these benches, that we would gladly give him that for which he is asking, and twice as much, if he would meet the Members of the Opposition in the case they are putting forward on behalf of the ex-service men. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we had been dealing during this Debate, not with regular cases, but with exceptions I suppose he would lead the Committee and the country to believe that the exceptions are extremely few, but there is no Member of the House who has not one or two or half-a-dozen exceptions in his division. It was about one such exception that I was thinking last night when the Minister, in spite of the charm and grace with which he can address the Committee was treating this very serious question at times almost in a spirit of levity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I make no apology for that statement. The right hon. Gentleman, at certain stages in his reply last night, almost led one to believe that it was pantomime rather than a serious matter with which he was dealing.
Here is the exception that I was thinking about when the Minister was speaking. A friend of mine came to see me not many weeks ago, and not for the first time, in his present condition. He served as a sapper for two and a-half years in the Royal Engineers, and a sapper was a soldier, was he not? He was one of the miners, and was a strong man before the War. This man sat before me in my own room, and was dependent upon sticks for standing, his feet being useless. He served his country, but was refused a pension. He tried to carry on for 12 months, and because he went over that period, he did not get another opportunity. He tried for four years to carry on, but the man and his family are now getting poor relief from the local guardians. That is the case that I thought of when the right hon. Gentleman was treating this matter with what, I suppose, he would call perfect good nature. I submit that that man is a type of thousands of men who are living on the guardians to-day in this country, and then the representative of the Government says: "We are considering the representations that have been made to us." Yes, about taking the vote from people who are getting poor relief.
Then I was thinking of another man, who was shot in the left shoulder. He got a small pension, but his health is broken and his nerves are all anyhow. His own doctor, who knew him when he was a schoolboy, and who has treated him right through, says that the nervous state in which he finds himself is a direct result of the wounds that he suffered. He went to an appeal and got no increase at all. I submit that it may be that these are exceptions, and that the Regulations do not exactly fit them, but surely this Committee ought to see to it that such cases are dealt with by one means or another. If the Regulations do not exactly fit the situation, Regulations should be made to secure that men like that do not come under poor relief. The second case is almost in the same condition as the first case that I mentioned. In regard to Item R, under which there is an additional sum of £10,000 required for advances in respect of anticipated or interrupted pensions, why are they interrupted? Why have the pensioners to come to Members of Parliament so
regularly? We have now arrived at the stage when the whole organisation—

Major TRYON: The answer is that we make payments when pensions are interrupted by men going into and out of hospital.

Mr. LAWSON: I say there are interruptions which are mainly due to the fact that the organisation that is supposed to be between the pensioner and the Ministry is changing. First of all, there was a time when you had your regular pensions committees, up to about 1921, composed of people who voluntarily gave their time and were in close touch with the pensioners themselves. I always thought, and I still think, that the Pensions Ministry made a great mistake when they practically cut out all that voluntary organisation. There was a certain warmth about it; they were in touch with the people on the spot. Then they had the regional officers, who are practically extinct now. Some hon. Members have made the point that it is not the Pensions Minister but the staff who are rather lacking in sympathy in administering the pensions. I should not take that point of view, however, as the absolute and last word on the subject. The Pensions Minister can be responsible for policy and can afford to be nice. Everybody knows that in the Army the officer can afford to be nice, but that it is the poor old sergeant-major who is always considered to be strict and not nice to talk to, the man who has to do the real work; and, after all, although there are usually good relationships between officers and men, it is a well-known fact that it is the man in between—in this case, the representative of the Ministry, the staff—who often has to carry out the dreadful task, a task which is dictated by the policy of the Minister himself.
While I know I am not allowed to discuss the question of policy, I want to put the point that, while, of course, the members of the pensions administration staffs throughout the country generally are not perfect individuals, they are sometimes put in the position of having to do something they do not at all care to do, but the pensioner will lose even the services and the advice of even these people in most parts of the country if the present policy is continued. What is going to happen in the future? There will be very little left between the pen-
sioner and his Member of Parliament, and we are going to get more rather than fewer letters, I am afraid. It may be presumed that there will still be "pensioners' friends" and that kind of assistance. I have been pleased myself—and I say it as a representative of the Labour party in this respect, although I think I have been fairly non-party throughout my dealings with the Pensions Ministry in the past few years—to hear tributes paid to the British Legion representatives in attending the appeal tribunals. I am prepared to pay testimony to the fact that they have been very helpful, and I do not know what some of the poor people would have done if it had not been for that paid, regular, experienced representative of the British Legion. I think the speech of the Pensions Minister came very badly last night in criticising an organisation of that character and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entirely outside the Vote. His speech would be suitable on the main Estimates, or on the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. LAWSON: I appreciate that fact, Captain FitzRoy, but one rather gets carried away. I take it that the organisation between the pensioner and the Minister can come under review under this Item R, and I think it is a dangerous point at which we have arrived in the evolution of the Ministry. It has now got to a stage when I think it is centralised almost completely. It seems to me that the intention is to centralise everything, or almost to get to that point, and I would suggest to the Minister and to the Committee that the mere fact that there is a majority on the Government Benches of something like 200, and that the Opposition or anyone who raises these questions about pensioners can be voted down, does not mean that there is going to be absolute satisfaction either with centralisation or the tendency to centralise. Every Member of this House knows that we are arriving at a stage in the progress of the Ministry of Pensions when the cases of pensioners will almost be beyond consideration, and I want to suggest that we ought to watch very, very carefully the movements that are being made towards centralisation, in order to guard the rights of those men and their dependants, who are doubly
suffering, and to whom this House and this country have a great duty to perform.
My final word is this: Let anyone throw his mind back to 1914 and 1918. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the exceptions. I was here first, in this House, in 1919, and if anyone had suggested then, or even in 1920 or 1921, that a man who was broken, who had fought for years in the War, would be dependent upon poor relief, this House and this country would have been burning with indignation.

Mr. LANSBURY: In 1916 they locked people up for saying it.

Mr. LAWSON: I remember that in 1920, when it first began to be mentioned that ex-service men who were able-bodied were dependent on pauper relief, the House was shocked to hear that there should be such a state of things prevailing. Of course, we were then very near the time when the promises had been made to the men, but the further we get away from that time, the greater becomes the complacency of this House in these matters. Perhaps it is not a question of party; I am afraid that it is the result of constant efforts to economise at no matter whose expense. There are men here who have been officers as well as rankers in the Army, and I do not believe that any officer under whom these men served would stop short at anything to save those men from the degradation to which they are having to submit at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for £1,500,000; we will give him £5,500,000 if he asks for it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about exceptions. He knows there are too many exceptions and I trust that this House will consider the more human side of this problem and absolutely refuse to accept that qualification—a condition of things which leaves men who served the country and who are broken and useless dependent upon Poor Relief and charity, but who are entitled to the best reward that the country can give them, expressed in financial terms.

Major TRYON: rose in his place and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 127.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davis, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major John Waller


Apsley, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hilton, Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dixey, A. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duckworth John
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Balniel, Lord
Eden, captain Anthony
Holland, Sir Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hope, sir Harry (Forfar)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Berry, Sir George
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Howard, Captain Hon, Donald


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackny, n)


Blundell, F. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Boothby, R. J. G. 
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Fermoy Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Forestier-Walker, sir L.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forrest, W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Jacob, A. E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, sir John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Gates, Percy.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) 
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. sir William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)


Bullock, Captain M.
Goff, sir Park
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Robert
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lamb, J. Q.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Loder, J. de V.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hammersley, S. S.
Lougher, L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cochranem Commander Hon. A. D.
Harland, A.
Lumely, L. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harrison, G. J. C.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cope, Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
MacIntyre, Ian


Couper, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
McLean, Major A.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Haslam, Henry C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) 
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Malone, Major P. B.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Margesson, Captain D.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Meller, R. J.
Remnant, Sir James
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Merriman, F. B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tinne, J. A.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Robinson, sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ropner, Major L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tyemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Rye, F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Salmon, Major I.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Murchison, C. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Neville, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills, Westn'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'd.)
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Cliver, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Skelton, A. N.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wolmer, Viscount


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon Sir L.


Phillipson, Mabel
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Pilcher, G.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidnew


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Day. Colonel Harry
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.



Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fielden, E. B.
Margesson Captain D.


Albery, Irving James
Finburgh, S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forrest, W.
Meller, R. J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Merriman, F. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Miine, J. S. Wardlaw


Apsley, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Ashmead Bartlett, E.
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col, Andrew Hamilton
Murchison, C. K.


Astor, Ma). Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grant, J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipson, Mabel


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilcher G.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brass, Captain W.
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Brittain, Sir Harry
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Remnant, Sir James


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Robert, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bullock, Captain M.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert. S. (York. N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Homan. C. W. J
Sandon, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co Down)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Couper, J. B.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, G. W. H.(Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crooke, J Smedley (Deritend)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess Of 


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lougher, L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dixey, A. C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Duckworth, John
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Elveden, Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. 


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)




Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wolmer, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)



Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


Wise, Sir Fredric
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com, Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks W.R. Elland)

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to the fishing industry, and move a Resolution.

FIGHTING SERVICES (PURCHASE DEPARTMENTS).

Major COLFOX: I beg to give notice that, on this day two, weeks, I will call attention to the necessity for the unification of the purchase departments of the three fighting services, and move a Resolution.

CLASS PREJUDICE.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to give notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to sundry manifestations of class prejudice displayed by the Government and its supporters in this House, and move a Resolution.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to the question of International Conventions, and move a Resolution.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ORKNEY AND ZETLAND) BILL,

" to amend the law as to the keeping open of the poll for two days at a Parliamentary election for Orkney and Zetland," presented by Sir Robert Hamilton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLASS V.

OVERSEA SETTLEMENT.

Resolved,
 That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants-in-Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and the Free Passage Scheme for Ex-Service Men and Women.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

COMPENSATION (IRELAND).

Resolved,
 That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £116,720, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Payments in respect of Compensation for Personal Injuries, and for use of, or malicious Damage to, Property, including advances on account of prospective awards of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, or under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act of the Irish Free State or on the security of stock issued under that Act; ex-gratia Grants; Grants to Refugees for the Relief of Distress; and advances in respect of Rent and other sums payable under the Land Act, 1923, of the Irish Free State.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT-IN-AID.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £1,200,000. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT [15th February].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925–26.

CLASS II.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,810, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,331, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,757, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."

First Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: When this question was in Committee, the question was put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the typewriters used in the offices for which he was responsible in this Vote, and the hon. Gentleman made an explanation with regard to these typewriters to which I desire to draw the attention of the House.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business, set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Major ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
This Bill is promoted by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, and I am going to state the objections to this Bill which are held by the Joint Electricity Authority for the London and Home Counties area, of which I happen to be Vice-Chairman. The lines of objection to this Bill do not involve a political issue. The issue to-night on this Bill is not a division between private enterprise and public enterprise. We discussed on Monday a Bill of rather similar character, which I opposed from a similar point of view to that which I am taking to-night, but an Irish red herring was drawn across the trail, with the result that there was somewhat of a contest on very well-trodden lines, which, as a matter of fact, had nothing whatever to do with the subject under dispute.
The Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, which is itself a company that joins with nine others, derives its power from the London Power Company. When I say "power," I use the word in the electrical sense. It seeks by this Bill to extend its area of supply, to get extended power in the area of supply which it has already, and to increase its area both inside the area of the Joint Electricity Authority for London and the Home Counties, and also in a very wide area in a number of counties as far away as Hampshire and Buckinghamshire, which are not so much my immediate concern.
The lines of objection are threefold. There is, first of all, a general objection to upsetting the work that was done by this Parliament last summer. This Par-
liament last summer, by two Electricity Supply Bills, and by the London and Home Counties Electricity Order, settled in broad outline the electricity programme of London. It set up a Joint Electricity Authority representative of all interests, the duty of which was to co-ordinate supply and distribution of electricity in the whole of that area, with the object of providing a cheap and an abundant supply, and, among other duties, that Authority had the duty of reporting by July next on a technical scheme annexed to the Order which is to lay down the general lines of development.
This Bill introduced to-day takes little or no account of that Joint Electricity Authority. It proposes to set up a large area, and proposes that this company should be constituted a power company. Under the Acts of 1919 and 1922, the power companies were given a position which practically put them outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. Thus you have one very large power company in the North known as the North Metropolitan. You have sundry others in the South, and, in effect, those areas of power companies constitute imperia in imperio, leaving the Joint Electricity Authority only a nominal authority in those areas. This Bill proposes to create another power company area in the West of London stretching over the South-West side, over a large part of Middlesex, parts of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and right across to Hampshire into areas in which I am not immediately concerned. The Joint Electricity Authority says, first of all, it objects to new jurisdiction being set up in contravention of what Parliament did last summer, and, secondly, in any case this work set out here is premature, because the Joint Electricity Authority has to report in July on the technical scheme. Until that is done, it is unfair to prejudge any of these questions.
There are various points that arise on this Bill, but I do not intend to deal with what may be called small Committee points. That there are a number of these Committee points may be judged from the fact that there are some 63 opponents of this Bill, and among those 63 are local authorities, companies and various persons. I will deal with the broad objections. First of all, we say that a greater
part of this Bill, so far as relates to the existing areas of supply of the company, are quite unnecessary, because by collaboration with, and through the Joint Electricity Authority, on which this company is represented, the whole of what it is sought to do by the new powers in this Bill can be effected. Secondly, in the added area, which is within the Joint Electricity Authority's area, you are in effect setting up certain territory and handing it over to this company, and actually infringing the rights of bulk supply given by Parliament to the Joint Electricity Authority only last July. It is not fair to the Joint Electricity Authority. It is not fair to members of other component parts of the Joint Electricity Authority, whether companies or local authorities, that Parliament should step in and give this wide authority and these wide powers to this particular company. Thirdly, there is the point of the area outside the new area. I am speaking more particularly from the point of view of the Joint Electricity Authority and the London and Home Counties outlook, and if there are areas which can usefully be supplied by this company, which are not being supplied, and over which there are no powers, I am not particularly concerned with regard to that supply, except that I think in any case in that part of the area an absolute freehold should not be given to thi6 company, but suitable and proper regulations should be laid down.
This Bill does something more than infringe the position of the Joint Electricity Authority. It also anticipates the proposals of the Government. We understand that the Government have proposals which will deal with the areas that already have authority, the areas that are outside the Joint Electricity Authority's scheme, and will deal with the supply and transmission of current in those and between those areas. Before we have any judgment on the problem by the new body sought by the Government, we have the territory being staked out by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company. But perhaps the most noteworthy thing to be borne in mind is that the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company is itself a middleman. It has handed over its generating to the London Power Company. Therefore, to undertake an intermediate supply to the local authorities or companies in the new areas it
must itself draw its current from someone else. From whom that current should be drawn is a matter to which, I understand, a considerable amount of attention will be paid by the Government in their new scheme. I do not think anything ought to be done in anticipation of that scheme. But we have it on record that the London Power Company itself anticipates that the load which is in sight in the added area will necessitate new plant. How, then, can the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company be in a position to supply all those in the area, especially, as an intermediary? From that point of view, and so far as the Joint Electricity Authority area is concerned, there is no need for any intermediary between the Joint Electricity Authority and its constituent members. Therefore, it is on these lines that we oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
If, in fact, this company was made into a power company it would be that by the mere fact of going outside the range of the Joint Electricity Authority. Now, if desired, that could have been done by Parliament last July. I cannot help feeling that in the promotion of this Bill undue haste has been shown, and there has been an attempt to stake out territory in anticipation. Whether that anticipation is of the Joint Electricity Authority, the local authorities or other companies, we say that it should not be done; that that is not the right way to go about the matter. Rather should it be laid down that the development of the electricity for London and the home counties should be coordinated and dealt with by the Joint Electricity Authority. The Metropolitan Electric Supply Company is a member of the Joint Electricity Authority. It is represented there, and the powers that are sought in this Bill, therefore, so far as inner London is concerned, can be obtained by working in and through the partnership with the Joint Electricity Authority.
For these reasons, and failing a satisfactory answer, we shall be obliged to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. It has been suggested by the other side in the course of the Debates this week that there are aspects of the case that ought to prevent us voting against the Second Reading of the company's Bill. I do not think there is anything
of the sort. Whilst on broad principles certain assumptions in a municipal sense may be allowed, where you have a wrong principle in a Bill that Bill ought not to go forward. It only means enormous expense and enormous trouble, of one sort or another. If the matter is in dispute in this Bill could be reduced to Committee point, well and good. Failing, however, satisfaction on these broad points which I have indicated, we shall vote against, and ask the House to vote against, the Second Reading.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that this company are premature in bringing forward this Bill, for it appears to me to be similar to the one we considered on Monday, only that this proposes to cover a different area, and probably a wider area than even the other Bill. It does, however, seem to be that this company is a partner in connection with the Joint Electricity Authority. There must be something in their minds that they either want to forestall the Joint Electricity Authority in some instances or they want to forestall the Government in their scheme. They know very well that the Government propose to bring in a Bill to deal with the whole of the electricity undertakings, and I hope they are going to have a very wide-reaching scheme when they do bring it forward.
It is a little bit too far-fetched that any company that is in the Joint Electricity Authority and taking part in its deliberations should come along with a Bill of their own, probably after talking and knowing what primarily the Joint Electricity Authority are going to do. They are endeavouring to jump the pitch. I cannot put it in plainer language than that. They never ought to be encouraged in that. As a matter of fact, I think they ought to be told definitely, like the other companies, that the House is not going to stand this. If they had only waited until the Joint Electricity Authority had had full time to discuss and consider the scheme which they are about to bring forward in accordance with the powers given to them last year entitling them to bring forward the scheme by July, well and good. I think this company would be well-advised to wait until that scheme is presented. The House will be well-
advised to wait until after the Government have brought forward their scheme, and then, if it is found that the Government are not prepared to do all that is required to be done, it will be quite time for any company to consider how they might take up the parts left undone by the Joint Authority or by the Government itself.
The promoters of the Bill say that numerous petitions have been deposited against the Bill by parties representing the various interests, and the Bill will inevitably be carefully scrutinised by the Select Committee to whom it may be referred. There are, it is said, 63 different authorities opposing the Bill. If there were any other than these in favour of the Bill I venture to say that the promoters would have put a paragraph in this Memorandum, which has been sent to various Members in the same way, I suppose, as I have received it, but they appear to have no friend at court faithful to them. The House will be well-advised to reject the Bill.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I must say that it puts the Minister in a rather difficult position to find that no Member has risen to speak in favour of the Bill. It does not follow, however, that it is not a good Bill. I very respectfully disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lime-house (Major Attlee), who moved the rejection of the Bill when he said he took it to be on all fours with the Bill we discussed the day before yesterday in that it cut across the Government's proposals. In my opinion, this is a very different Bill. It does not cut across, or in any way impinge upon, the Government proposals, in that it is not concerned with a generating station. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I can say quite definitely on the part of the Government that we have no objection to this Bill qua our electricity proposals, whatever we may have felt with regard to the Bill which was before the House on the day before yesterday.
This Bill will undoubtedly be beneficial to the large areas outside the area under the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. I will deal with the case of the Joint Electricity Authority in one moment. In the large area outside,
where this company seeks to get powers, the Bill will undoubtedly help the consumer of light and power to obtain it more easily, and to that extent it will be for the benefit of the community at large. I know there are many objections to this Bill from that area, and I understood that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) was going to be in his place to voice the feelings of some of his constituents on the subject; but I submit that all these objections are Committee points. They may be very excellent points—I have not gone into them, it has not been my duty to go into them—but because, in my opinion, all these are Committee points I think the House would be very ill-advised to reject the Bill. The objections which are raised ought to be heard by the Committee which will deal with the Bill if a Second Reading is given to it.
May I come to what is really the contentious part of this Bill as I see it, and I have taken some trouble to inform myself as to the views of hon. Members who are interested in it? The hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse, speaking for the Joint Electricity Authority of London—which was set up three or four months ago and which is, if he will allow me to say so, doing very good work, and I hope will continue to do better still in the future—says they object to this Bill inside their area because they submit, and with some force, that if the Bill be passed in its present form it would take away some of the rights and privileges they now possess. I sympathise with what they say. I understood, from private conferences—and that is why I am sorry nobody got up to speak for the Bill—that the company were willing to meet the Joint Electricity Authority along, I might almost say, nine-tenths of the way, and that there was only one real point of difference which stood between them and complete agreement.
There are two areas inside the area of the Joint Electricity Authority of London. One is in the north-west, where the Metropolitan Company are now functioning, and where they seek certain fresh powers. In that area they are quite willing, as I understand—I do not speak for them, but I feel it is my duty to put to the House what I know, so that Members may be in possession of the facts so far as I am able to ascertain them—that the suzerainty, the overriding
jurisdiction, to put it that way, of the Joint Electricity Authority shall prevail, and that none of the fresh powers which this Bill would give shall be exercised by the Metropolitan Company without the consent of the Joint Electricity Authority. That seems to me a very sensible arrangement and one which, I believe, the Joint Electricity Authority could agree to. It seems quite reasonable.
Then we come to the other area, south-west of the present district which the Joint Electricity Authority has power over, and where the Metropolitan Company also seek powers. In that area, I understand—as far as I know—the company have made no offer to submit these potential powers to the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. Speaking personally, I think they should do that.
To sum up, if I may advise the House, I should say most certainly that we should give this Bill a Second Reading, because I think it deserves a Second Reading on its merits. As the House knows, it is my duty when a Bill is in Committee—it is a statutory duty—to send a communication to the Select Committee which is considering it, and I say, quite definitely, that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading I shall consider it my duty respectfully to suggest to the Committee that they should insert provisions which would safeguard the overriding interests of the Joint Electricity Authority in the area where the Joint Electricity Authority is paramount at the present moment. Subject to that, I think the Bill is a sound and a good one, and should receive a Second Reading.

Major ATTLEE: Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend anything with regard to the area outside?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that I am in a very difficult position, because I have no power to speak for anybody, but I did understand that the promoters were offering that if they were to become the power company in the area outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority—not to become a power company with perpetual tenure, as power companies have usually been up to now, but a power com-
pany with a tenure up to 50 years. At the end of 50 years they should be liable to be bought out by the Joint Electricity Authority or any other public authority which has power to purchase. I have no right to make that as an offer on the part of the company, but I understand that is a suggestion which has been put forward and not unfavourably received by the company.

Mr. MARCH: Do you mean by that that there is likely to be another Joint Electricity Authority, or will the present Joint Electricity Authority have power to cover those areas?

Colonel ASHLEY: That I could not say: 50 years hence is a long time.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Like the Minister, I feel in a difficult position to-night, because I have been waiting to hear a statement from the promoters of the Bill. I want to represent the case of one of those 63 authorities which are objectors to this Bill. The Royal Borough of Wokingham, amongst others, is apprehensive of certain Clauses in the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister is right or wrong in saying we ought to allow the Bill to go to Committee, but I think we ought to get a definite undertaking that in Committee the promoters will, as far as my objectors at Wokingham are concerned, reconsider Clauses 13 to 15. What will be the position of a little country town like Wokingham, where it is proposed to run wires all over the town, although the town have made arrangements with the local gas and electricity undertakings that that should not be done? Are their streets to be dug up without any proper compensation? I would also like to know, seeing the Government are bringing in a big electricity scheme, what the position of this company itself is going to be? Will they be able to say, "Now we have got this thing, and you will have to pay us so much to get out."? I think before the Government recommend even a Second Reading they ought to arrange that with the promoters. If the promoters will meet Wokingham in the two points they have raised I shall not oppose the Bill going to a Second Reading, but I shall expect them to give an undertaking that in Committee these objections shall be met.

Mr. HARRIS: I think it is unfortunate that the House should be asked to give a decision upon a Bill of this character at the present time. We have before us the prospect of a very large electricity scheme, and I am rather surprised that the Minister of Transport, knowing that these smaller schemes were coming before Parliament, did not take Parliament into his confidence and give us the advantage of the inquiries he has made. Most of the inquiries made by various Committees have recommended that electricity, whether undertaken by municipalities or private companies, should be done on natural lines. The great mistake in the past has been that they have been dealt with piecemeal instead of under a large comprehensive scheme. The first step taken in this direction was the creation of the Joint Electricity Authority. I was one of those who wanted some kind of electricity authority for London because I thought that London provided a very-good unit, but technical experts have recommended that to take London as a unit would be a mistake and they recommend that we Should have much larger units, and the result of inquiries by commissioners is that they recommend that the Home Counties be taken as a unit for dealing with this problem.
The Joint Electricity Authority has hardly found its feet yet, and it has not issued any report, and has scarcely got through the first stages of its existence, and I do think under these circumstances it is unfair, without having the advantage of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister, or the Report of the inquiries of the Joint Electricity Authority, to be asked to give a judgment on this Bill. The area dealt with under this Bill is largely a rural area, and the load line will not be a very good one. For success you must not only have a large area, but you must include as large a variety of industries in it as possible. It would be far better for this new district to come into a larger scheme, instead of building new power stations.
With regard to this Measure we have been promised Amendments in Committee, but I suggest to the Ministry of Transport that it would be far wiser to stay our hand in order that the area dealt with under this Bill may come in under a great national scheme that will
bring to our country a new era of electric development. I do not see why the part of the country dealt with by this Bill, which after all is very backward in many ways, should be handicapped in this way, because the very foundation of its industrial future depends upon having an up-to-date and efficient system of electricity. We ought to think very carefully before we pledge ourselves on the very eve of a new scheme to the adoption of a Bill of this kind.
I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) in his place, because I am aware that although we differ on many things, I think we are agreed to-night in regard to this Bill, and I understand that the county of Middlesex is not at all satisfied about this particular scheme. Many areas in Middlesex are affected by this Measure, and I think this is the very worst occasion to bring forward a Measure of this kind. The real issue is whether when the whole electricity system of the country is going to be reorganised that is an appropriate time for this Bill to be brought before the House of Commons.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I confess that I am not in my usual role to-night, and for once I am opposing a Private Bill.

Mr. GROVES: Are you a Bolshevist?

Sir H. NIELD: I hope it will not be considered that opposition to a Private Bill is necessarily evidence of Bolshevism. The Borough of Ealing, who generate their own electricity, have during the last 12 months petitioned against this Bill, and so has the Middlesex County Council. Although I am adverse to wrecking Private Bill legislation on the Second Reading, I do think that if this Bill goes through there should be an instruction to the Committee not to proceed with it until the Report of the Joint Electricity Authority is before us, and I think a great deal of money might be saved by that process. By taking this course I am simply representing my constituency and exercising a certain amount of common sense. I was professionally concerned during the whole of those long inquiries with regard to the electricity supply of the Home Counties, and I know the great labour involved in producing this scheme, known as the Home Counties Scheme, and I should be doing wrong if in regard to this matter I allowed a private company
to jump their claim. I am all in favour of private enterprise, but I am bound to say I think it would be a very unwise step to force this Bill to a Second Reading under the present conditions. I am not at all sure whether it would not operate retrospectively, so as to take the company out of the scheme of the Joint Electricity Authority. If my recollection serves me, only those existing power companies which have been put into the Schedule are exempt from the operation of the Order, and I do not think it is desirable, at this time of day, to add to them.
If this company is constituted as a power company, it will very seriously handicap the borough council of Ealing, who are generating electricity satisfactorily, who, in spite of great opposition, have been able to increase their plant under an Order of the Electricity Commissioners, who are looking forward to reaping the benefit of that extended plant, and who know the borough, its capabilities and its wants, which they are able to supply. If this company is allowed to set up in opposition, it will be a matter of very grave concern to the ratepayers, whose credit is involved in the present station and the extended machinery. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be very wrong to grant these powers at a moment when the whole matter is in the melting pot, and before the authority which is representative of all the municipal and extra-municipal undertakings has been able to put its proposals before the House of Commons. The company are seeking further powers to break up the roads. This is a Committee point, but they have already considerable powers in that direction, and, having regard to the

problem with which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal, I am sure he would not encourage an increase of facilities for breaking up the roads. Then there is another objection, in the shape of maximum prices, and the proposed revision by the incorporation of Section 33 of the Act of 1905. This again, is a Committee point, but still it has its bearing. It is very undesirable that additional powers of this description should be given.

These three reasons are common to the county council and the borough council of Ealing, but there is a fourth, which affects the borough of Ealing alone, and that is that for 10 years they have to take their supply from this company in bulk under an Order of the Commissioners. It would be very improper that this company should come in as an opponent of the borough council in order to prejudice that authority, which has hitherto borne all the burden of initiating a supply of electricity in that district. It is now, or at any rate it gives promise of being, a very paying concern, and, therefore, whatever may be said outside, it does appear to the Borough of Ealing to be unjust that it should be subjected at this moment to opposition of this character. For all these reasons, while I deprecate the wrecking of a Bill on Second Reading, I hope the House will insist on an instruction being given to the Committee not to proceed with the consideration of this Bill until they have before them the proposals of the Joint Electricity Authority.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 128.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[9.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Couper, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Apsley, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, E. T.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Berry, Sir George
Christie, J. A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Dixey, A. C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Eden, Captain Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rye, F. G.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Forrest, W.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacIntyre, Ian
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macmillan, Captain H.
Simms, Dr John M. (Co. Down)


Grace, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Grant, J. A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hanbury, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harrison, G. J. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Huntingfield, Lord
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Jacob, A. E.
Preston, William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Ramsden, E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remer, J. R.



King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sir Joseph Nall and Mr. Dennis Herbert.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. HOn. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duckworth, John
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Penny, Frederick George
young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Major Attlee and Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

UNEMPLOYED (REMUNERATIVE EMPLOYMENT).

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to move—
 That steps should be taken by the Government on a large scale towards the further development of Greater Britain in order that new fields of remunerative employment may be opened up and unemployment relieved in Great Britain.
During the past two centuries we have never had any long period of time without unemployment. It is an evil that has existed ever since we became an industrial State. Since the conclusion of the Great War unemployment has reached a point when it can no longer be dealt with by palliatives such as doles, which ruin the recipients and cost more than the nation can afford to spend without getting a return. Remunerative work is hard to obtain because manufacturers cannot find markets for their goods, and our industrialists are no longer able to capture the market of Europe. They relied perhaps too much upon being able to get our goods in in countries where the art of industry was not on a par with ours. We cannot count upon those markets to the same extent in future. There are two reasons that I could name for it. In the first place, there is far more education in the world to-day than there was. The schoolmaster is abroad, and education has been speeding up at a great rate. In addition, you have modern science, which has brought countries much nearer to each other by the development of electricity and transport, and modern machinery, which has largely done away with that handicraft for which our men were noted. Countries that in the past used to buy from us now own their own machinery and produce their own goods. As a result, we often find that we have to compete with countries which have a lower standard of living than we have, and where lower wages are accepted and longer hours are worked.
In addition to that we find that in this country and in other leading countries of the civilised world where there were makers of machinery they have done all in their power to get the more backward countries to buy their machinery, and they have sent their skilled men to teach them how to use it. I have visited mills in foreign countries. I saw machinery that was made in England, I saw
machinery that was made in Germany and machinery that was made in America. On asking about it I was told, "The original mill was erected by foreign mechanics. They stayed here and ran it and taught our people how to run it and then turned over the mill to them." Those are countries that can no longer be considered as great purchasers of British goods. They are our competitors in nearly all the markets of the world. At home we are suffering. We cannot get our goods in for, in addition to what I have said, you find that almost all the countries have put tariffs on foreign goods in order to prevent them being sold in their country at prices which would prevent their mills running and would put their men on the unemployed list. In England to-day we have thousands of able workmen ready and willing to work who cannot find the work. We have some mills lying idle and some working only half time, unable to give the employment because they cannot get rid of their output. In Great Britain, as part of the British Empire, we ought to suffer very little or no unemployment. Great Britain is over-populated. The Empire is under-populated, and I therefore feel it is our duty to see whether we cannot get migration within the Empire, whether temporary or permanent, but such migration as will enable more work to be obtained.
Let me glance at the question of population in the 17th century, when the Pilgrim Fathers started out to form in America a new England, where they would live under their own flag, the population of England was under 5,000,000. In 1801, the first time a general census was taken, the population of Great Britain amounted to over 10,500,000. In the census taken in 1921 we find the population reached nearly 43,000,000. The result is that within a period of 120 years we have found that our population has been more than quadrupled, and to-day we have in Great Britain 406 people to the square mile, while in England alone we have 701. What is the position in other parts of the Empire. In Canada and Australia, two of the greatest units in the British Empire, with vast territory, they have only two persons to the square mile. There you have magnificent territory and a small population. In Germany there are 348 people to the square mile, in
Japan 339, and in the United States of America, with its vast territory, 35. It is generally recognised by all practical men that unless we populate the undeveloped portions of our Empire we cannot expect indefinitely to retain them. Something must be done, and it is for these reasons, as well as for the welfare of the over-population in our home country, that I urge upon the Parliament of this country to take steps to see that migration is conducted on a large and efficient scale.
There are a great many ways in which migration could be carried out. Let me give the outline of an idea which would require careful investigation in the hands of a committee which should have power, with the approval of the Government, to act. We have already the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, which was passed in order to make better provision for furthering British settlement in His Majesty's Dominions. It provides for joint assistance with public authorities or with public or private organisations to suitable settlers in connection with land settlement schemes. I think it is very generally recognised that it is the duty of the Government to take a hand in the control and regulation of migration within the Empire, and that the Government are now doing. It is only a question as to whether any better way could be found in which the Secretary of State, using the power which he already has, may be able, if the House so decides, to deal with the matter in a larger and quicker manner.
I propose the establisment of Empire Development Corporations, with a separate Corporation for each Colony where operations might be undertaken, each Corporation to have ordinary shareholders, who must become resident in the Colony and would ultimately be the owners of the Corporation, but the ordinary shares to be held for the time being in the hands of trustees appointed by the Government.
The members of each corporation would be divided into guilds. The pioneer guild would do the pioneer work, the grubbing, the clearing of land, the preparation of land for cultivation, the making of roads, and so forth, and, if minerals were found, would do the work in connection with their development. There would be a
building guild, a farmers' and planters' guild, a business guild, and other guilds which might be found necessary. The capital necessary to start the enterprise would be found by issuing preference shares at a reasonable interest, which could be paid off at any time by the proprietors giving 12 months' notice, the Government, if necessary, guaranteeing the interest for a period of years. A certain amount of money might have to be lent by the Government on debentures. When the crops had been put down, the Government, if called upon from time to time, would make the necessary advances on them, on an agreement that a certain percentage should be marketed in Great Britain.
The management of each corporation would be in the Colony in which it is located, but there would be a central clearing house in London to regulate finances and co-ordinate the operations of all the corporations. No one would be entitled to own ordinary shares until after five years' connection with the corporation. Prior to being entitled to become a shareholder, a committee, appointed at first by trustees and afterwards by the local members of the corporation in the Colony, should have the power to object to anyone who has proved himself, in their opinion, undesirable to become a member. The duty of the Empire Development Corporations would be, first, to make arrangements with the various Dominions and Colonies for the lease of areas of undeveloped land for a period of 99 years, with the right of the corporation to purchase at any time during the lease any or all of the land at the price agreed as the value of the land at the time of the signing of the original contract, provided that it is handed over by the corporation in fee simple to a genuine settler, who must be a member of the corporation.
The second duty of the Corporations would be to send out to the leased land a large expeditionary force of men belonging to the pioneer guild for a period of three or five years to do the grubbing, construct the roads, clear the land and prepare for cultivation. Each man who proved himself suitable as a settler would become entitled to become a shareholder in the Corporation operating in his particular locality. Following the pioneers, then the builders, then the planters and
farmers would be sent out, and in a short time the families and the community. My sketch is very rough and would naturally need most careful thought and probably would require amendment and enlargement, but I believe that it is feasible, and that there are to-day in our own country public works contractors, men who have built harbours, dams and great railways in foreign countries who would undertake a job like this and bring it to a success.
I shall probably be told that no Dominion or Colony would agree to such an enterprise. With that statement I entirely disagree. Our brothers across the seas realise as much as we do that populations are growing the world over and that the habitable portions of the globe are sought for by many nations, and that the only sure way of their retaining their lands must be by inhabiting them. In the way I suggest, they would get populations of their own kith and kin. The Dominions and Colonies possess some of the best of our race, men who, although tenacious of their rights, are fully alive to the benefits that accrue from the maintenance and success of the British Empire. They fully realise that the development of unbroken areas within their jurisdiction would mean the creation of new towns, new roads, and new taxpayers.
I shall not deal with all the likely places that may suggest themselves to the minds of hon. Members, but I will refer to a few. I will refer to Canada, that great country with an enormous area and only two persons to the square mile, lying contiguous to America with 35 persons to the square mile. Canada knows that she requires settlers, but she will not have any settlers unless they are of the best, and we can give her the best. In 1923 Canada produced 500,000,000 bushels of wheat, and I am told that not one-sixth of the cultivatable land in Canada was occupied. Now let us go a bit farther, to Tasmania. There is an island more than half as big as England with only nine persons to the square mile as against our 701. It has got a climate which must be magnificent, for I am told it is exactly the same as ours here in England. It has got great mountains and primeval forests, but it has vast plains that might be looked into for cultivation. I believe that those are two countries where an appeal like this would be useful, and we can get heaps of
places where our own people could go and earn a livelihood. They might only go for a period of years, but they would remain under the British flag and do as the old pilgrims did, decide that they would rather work under the British flag than any other in the world.
I do not intend to take up much more time, but I would like to say this. I know that it is the policy of the Government, as stated by the Prime Minister, to co-operate in every way possible with the Dominions and Crown Colonies for development of Empire resources, for the promotion of settlement within the Empire and for the expansion of inter-Imperial trade, but I want to urge on the House that this is not the time to deal with matters in driblets. We want a big, broad scheme for the Empire. We want unanimity here in connection with it and we want our people to feel that those who go out are not separating themselves from the Mother Country but are going out to do service to the State and the Empire, and I believe that, if this scheme were carried out and a broader and quicker method is adopted than exists to-day, we shall not only be providing a livelihood to those who may emigrate, but that we shall be affording still more markets for our products.

Mr. HANNON: I rise to second the Motion submitted in such carefully considered and moderate terms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth is of all Members in this House competent to talk on Imperial subjects. He has himself had wide experience of the conditions which obtain in our oversea Dominions and Dependencies, and when he comes to this House and submits a proposition of the kind he has placed before us this evening, I am sure the House will treat with respect the suggestions he has made. The question of expanding our Imperial possibilities, of bringing the different constituent parts of the Empire closer together, and of encouraging every means of developing inter-Imperial trade, must always be an important part of the policy of any Government which may be in office in this country and, if I may venture to say so, I think it occupies a very conspicuous place in the programme of the present Administration. I think the House knows that no Minister, in our time at all events, has had wider experience of the whole
Imperial system than the present Secretary of State for the Dominions and Colonies. We may be perfectly satisfied that in his care any question affecting the Empire will receive the fullest and most thoughtful consideration.
The proposition submitted to the House to-night by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth is one, of course, with which he could not deal in exhaustive' detail. He gave outline of a general proposition in relation to which corporations should be established in various parts of the Empire, endowed with certain distinctive faculties for the development of trade, the extension of settlement and so forth. The only little embarrassment with which I think my hon. Friend's proposition will be met is that he suggests, in putting his proposal before the House, that a Government guarantee of credit should attach to the scheme when it is put into operation in the various parts of our Dominions. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion very carefully, but I am not at all certain that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were on the Front Bench he would be inclined to smile on the proposal of my hon. Friend for the establishment of a Government guarantee for the corporations in different parts of the Dominions. I think that we are not, perhaps, giving as much clear thinking to these Imperial questions in this country as ought to be the case. I am proud to think that on the benches opposite a good number of hon. Gentlemen have been giving much thought to Imperial questions during the last few years, and I think Members on this side of the House will read with much satisfaction a very important contribution on Imperial thought which has recently been made by the Empire committee of the Labour party. But wherever we may sit in this House, we must endorse the proposition and the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, that the only substantial hope for the future expansion of our trade and the future happiness of large masses of our people is by a development of all possible means of making the Empire itself more reproductive and more highly organised for the reception of our people.
Of course, I am one of those who hold very strongly that in relation to these Imperial questions the dominant consideration is that we must have preferential arrangements between this country and the constituent parts of the Empire if real, wholesome and continuous trade expansion is to take place. There is very little use—and I think that is the experience of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, since we came into office—in making concrete propositions, even of the excellent character submitted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, to our overseas Dominions, for encouraging migration and greater production of food and raw materials, and for expanding markets where we can dispose of our manufactured products, unless you are prepared to offer to the Dominions and Dependencies some preference in our markets in this country for the products they send here.

Mr. NAYLOR: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to introduce the question of preference with the Dominions into a Debate on this Resolution?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Yes; I think the bounds of the Motion are quite wide enough.

Mr. HANNON: I was only pointing out, with reference to the proposals made by my hon. Friend, that any scheme of the kind he contemplates can only really be effective and helpful as between the Mother Country and the Dominions and Dependencies, if a system of preferential trading is established, as would have been the case, and as has been the case, in every other colonising nation in the world. The most happy recollection in recent times of stress in relation to our trade, is the steady rise in the purchasing power of our Imperial markets. Any-one who examines the figures of the Trade and Navigation Returns for the last five or six years, will observe a steady decline in our foreign market, but at the same time, and indeed in more than corresponding degree, a steady increase in our Dominion and Colonial markets. Therefore, we have the encouraging sign, on the hard basis of statistics, that our own Empire steadily from day to day is becoming our most valuable customer.
There is a certain amount of uneasiness in the country at the somewhat dilatory way in which the recent grant of £1,000,000 for the encouragement of inter-Imperial trade is being dealt with by the Department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When the Prime Minister told the country that this exceptional provision, which, as far as I know, had no precedent in our national administration, was made for the purpose of encouraging inter-Imperial trade, I thought that some positive steps would be taken without delay as evidence of something being done to bring ourselves and our Dominions to a definite understanding on some practicable scheme. But up to the present I do not think that the Secretary of State—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being present—

Mr. HANNON: I am very sorry that an hon. Gentleman opposite has delayed the time of the House by asking for a Count. On this side of the House we have extended every conceivable courtesy of that nature to hon. Members on the other side, and in talking of Imperial questions, which are of as much interest to hon. Members opposite as to us, it is a pitiable thing to have a Count called in the middle of a Debate of this nature. The question of Imperial development has been, perhaps, brought home more to us in the last two years by reports which we have had on that wonderful new part of the Empire, the Kenya Colony and Uganda. I had an opportunity recently of seeing a deputation of South African farmers who had spent some time in the Kenya Colony investigating for themselves, and, of course, in the light of their own life-long South African experiences, the possibilities of that part of the Empire. They told me that there we have almost every variety of climate, rich soil, abundant opportunities of cultivation, and that, when irrigation schemes have been established, practically every kind of product useful to man can be produced in ever increasing volume in a vast territory of 1,000,000,000 acres.
I know that the Secretary of State has been giving very careful consideration to the possibilities of this new part of the Empire. Indeed, I think it is a great tribute to his administration of the
Colonial Office that one of the first constructive acts associated with his work was the vote of £10,000,000 for the development of that great new area. It is certain that with the establishment of harbours, the making of new lines of rail way, the opening up of that country, the introduction of modern farming methods, and the aid of expert knowledge, immense advances and immense economic expansion may be anticipated in that part of the world within a very short period of time. The question calls for united effort, and common understanding on the part of all parties in this House. There is nothing that has given me more satisfaction for a long time than my recent contact with certain Members of the Labour party who have as high a conception of their responsibility towards the Empire as those of us on this side who have from time to time called ourselves Imperialists. I sincerely hope that we shall have a more generous exchange of views on these great questions between both sides of the House in the days to come.
There is no earthly reason why the question of our Imperial growth, the advancement of our Imperial economic possibilities, should be a question of party differences in this House. A question of this kind is one which must make an appeal to everyone, no matter to what school of thought he may belong. Although one cannot expect any great result from a Debate of this kind, yet it is useful and helpful and hopeful that Imperial questions are discussed here from time to time. One is always glad to observe that when Imperial questions are discussed quietly and helpfully in this House, we have always a response from the other parts of the Empire in appreciation of the measure of thought that we give to the questions which affect them. I hope that in this Parliament, and in future Parliaments, there will be a steadily rising enthusiasm for Imperial things, sympathy for the difficulties which Imperial statesmen in our Dominions have to contend with, and a more intimate understanding of the nature of the problems which attach to all these proposals for Imperial migration, economic development, Imperial transport, and so forth.
Some people are inclined to talk a great deal on this question without ade-
quate knowledge, and I suggest that there is to be found in the Library of the House and elsewhere, an immense volume of information relating to the Empire which could be studied with much profit by many hon. Members. This Debate is a step towards a wider understanding of our Imperial affairs. My hon. Friend the Mover has well discharged an admirable work in bringing this subject under the notice of the House, and I sincerely hope that in the discussion which will follow, his proposal will be sympathetically if critically reviewed. He will at all events, I feel sure, have the satisfaction of meeting with a general acceptance of the broad principles of Imperial advancement, and that acceptance and approval by the House will reverberate throughout the whole of our Imperial estate.

Mr. LUNN: When I heard the non. Member for Plymouth (Sir A. S. Bean) announce, the other day, that he intended to move a Resolution dealing with unemployment and the provision of remunerative employment, I cheered, as did most hon. Members who sit behind me. There are so many ways in which the hon. Member might have dealt with this subject in a practical way, that one is sorry to find that he has put on the Paper a Motion such as that which we are discussing to-night. I think it unfortunate that we should have a Motion like this on the subject of Empire migration. I do not propose to deal with the speech of the Seconder, but rather to confine myself to the speech of the Mover, because he has made it clear that his idea of finding remunerative employment for the unemployed of this country is that we should shovel the unemployed off to some part of the Empire overseas. That is the only interpretation which can be put upon his speech. It is not so unfortunate, perhaps, for Members of this House that he should make a speech of that sort, but it is terribly unfortunate for those in the Dominions who are interested in and working for Imperial migration, that such a speech should appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Everybody I know who is interested in the subject and who desires to encourage migration, has kept aloof from the idea of supporting the movement with the intention directly of
relieving unemployment. As a matter of fact, if the Mover reads the Reports of the Overseas Settlement Committee of recent years, he will find this is very clearly laid down year after year. I will read just one paragraph from the report of a delegation of representatives of all parties which went to Australia three years ago. They said:
 In the course of our tour we found many evidences of a suspicion that our mission was largely due to the desire of the home Government to decrease the burden of unemployment at home by shipping to Australia large numbers of the unemployed people, without too much regard to their suitability for life in the Dominions.
I do not deny for one moment that migration would relieve unemployment and encourage trade, but to give the idea to the people of Australia—where five of the State Governments are Labour Governments and where they have unemployment, perhaps in a small way—or to the people of Canada that our wish in this matter is merely to relieve unemployment at home, is not very helpful. Indeed, I was sorry a few moments ago that the House was not counted out, as I am particularly interested in migration and wish to give all the help I can. If I dare do so, I suggest to the Mover that it would be more in the interests of migration if he were to withdraw this Motion, rather than it should be passed by this House, and carried across the seas to our Dominions, as an expression of the policy of the present Parliament. The Labour party have shown during the last two or three years—many members of the party at all events—that they are interested in this subject. Since Government interference entered into this question at all, as much has been done by the Labour Government as by any other Government in pressing it forward. It is not so long ago since Governments in this country interfered with or supported migration. It is only since the War that it has been done, but during the short period of the Labour Government's existence, steps were taken to encourage a better understanding between this country and the Dominions, as important as any which has been previously taken, and efforts were made to reach an agreement which would not only provide for people who wished to go to Canada or Australia, but would also ensure proper reception, settlement, and after-care For
them when they had landed in those Dominions.
That is largely what Government interference in this matter should mean, as I see it, and I had no difficulties as Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee with the Cabinet of the Labour Government in encouraging this particular movement in this way. But we never allowed it to be understood, nor do we desire that it should be understood, nor do I think it is the desire of the Dominions Secretary that it should be understood, that we are anxious to push our people out of this country, that we are overcrowded here, and that the people must go away whether they want to go or not. Our aim should be to help those who do want to go. In fact, there are thousands of people in this country who want to go to Australia, Canada or New Zealand, the three Dominions with which we have an arrangement under the Empire Settlement Act. There are more people in this country who want to go than the Dominions can take, and so there is no need for a strong propaganda and an unwise propaganda in this country at the present moment. I believe that this is a subject which has suffered more from its advocates than any other subject of which one can think. The painting of too bright a picture of what migrants are to expect when they go overseas, has done great injury to Empire settlement. The Labour party, however, have shown their interest in this matter, and at the Liverpool Conference they passed an Empire programme, which might be considered favourably by any hon. Member opposite, and which is, I think, as important, as wise, and as likely to be accepted by the Dominions as any proposals I have heard from any other section of the House.
I have no reason to doubt that the Labour party are prepared to push forward an Empire policy with the idea of a better understanding between this country and the Dominions. It was the Labour Government which entered into an agreement with Canada for the 3,000 families which are now migrating to that Dominion, and I believe that within a month from to-day something like 1,000 families will go to Canada under that scheme. A year ago something like 500 families went, and from the hundreds of
letters that have come to me from those who have gone under that scheme, I am quite satisfied that it was a good arrangement that was made with the Canadian Government, and I hope it may be extended after the 3,000 families already in view have gone. With regard to Australia, the same thing arose in starting the arrangement there which was concluded by the Colonial Secretary a year ago. There is a provision in the agreement made there that 34,000 families of not less than five persons per family shall be included in the 450,000 that are provided for in the next 10 years. I believe very much in family migration. I am not very strong with regard to single men and single women. I am not as strong on that phase of the subject as I am on the family side. I have always, since I took an interest in this matter, believed that the mother and children should go with the father, and if there is to be settlement, there should be every encouragement and help given to them and every possibility of a good start when they get overseas.
But I am sure that this matter does not end even there. Are there no possibilities in this country for using the Empire Settlement Act? Is there no land in this country which needs cultivating? I would suggest that there are plenty of opportunities for remunerative employment in this country for those who wish to work on the land. I belong to a particular industry which is suffering very much just now, and has been for a long time, and I am hoping that something will arise which will bring about a better understanding and give to our people something in the nature of a reasonable and decent livelihood, but in that particular industry there are scores of thousands of men who have come from the land, who have worked on the land, and who are not far distant from the land, and there are millions of acres in this country which might be utilised and offered as an alternative to overseas settlement. I am not depreciating overseas settlement by taking that particular course, for I believe that, with an alternative scheme of settlement on the land of this country, it would not reduce the numbers who would want to go overseas.
We shall see, when there is a revival in trade in this country, a revival in the desire to go overseas. It is always
during a period of unemployment, I am told; that the numbers who emigrate to other parts of the world are lowest, and we who come from the workers quite understand that position. We know that people will take risks when they have something of their own in their pockets. They do not desire charity, but would much rather use their own money and have a pound or two of their own when they get to where they are going than be dependent on receiving something from other people. When trade is better, I am satisfied there will be people who will desire to go, but I would like to see another inquiry into this matter of Empire settlement, and I would include this country.
10.0 P.M.
Under the Empire Settlement Act as we have it to-day, there can be no arrangement made except on a fifty-fifty basis. I think that is quite a satisfactory position with regard to any arrangements that are made between this country and any Dominions overseas, but I think it is not a satisfactory position with regard to anything that the Overseas Settlement Committee or the Minister of Agriculture, representing the work of that Committee, may do in settlement in this country. There ought to be better means of training people here than there are to-day, better opportunities of training them on the land, and perhaps one of the best ways would be for the Government to consider this question before the next Imperial Economic Conference. We are told there is likely to be one at the end of the year, and we, who are working on this question of migration, know the difficulties that our people have to undergo when they do desire to emigrate. I was told the other way by a friend, who wished to go to Canada, that his family had to go to Liverpool from Leeds to be examined. That sort of thing ought to be avoided, and there should be a possibility of examination somewhere nearer than 100 miles away from home for those who wish to go. Another matter is the little defects there may be in a family for which they are turned down. For instance, I had a case from one of my hon. Friends, who told me that a family had been turned down because a child of three had got rickets. I am sure that, given good food and fresh air, that would have been a
healthy family before very long, if that was the only defect there was in the family.
In view of the possibility of an Imperial Economic Conference at the end of the year, I would like to suggest, even on this Resolution of my hon. Friend with which I so much disagree, that the Colonial Secretary should set up an inquiry into this matter, to see how far it is possible to remove the defects which now stand in the way of thousands of people in this country who are wanting to go to our Dominions, and how far it is possible, beyond that, to settle people on the land and provide a means of training for those who desire either to go overseas or to work on the land in this country. I am sure that there is a possibility of establishing group settlements in this country. Why not take areas of land wherein you could settle something like 100 or 200 families in a given area and do something in the way of food production at home? We are purchasing hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of foodstuffs from overseas which might be produced here, and which, if people were given the opportunity of working on the land, they would be willing to do.
I am sure, after the experience of the British Empire Steel Corporation in Nova Scotia, and that great strike, and the shooting of those men in connection with it, and the lives of the people who are working in those mines in that particular quarter, and after the experience of the British Empire Steel Corporation in Newfoundland, where a million tons of iron ore is produced and sent to Germany-—not to this country, for the benefit of our island steel industry—there is not much desire, nor can there be, on the part of Members of this House, without more information than has been given by the hon. Member opposite to-night, to support further corporations being set up in other distant parts of the world for our people to go to and be treated in a similar way. I am sorry, therefore, that we are having this discussion on Empire Settlement, a most important subject, and a subject upon which I feel quite fascinated and interested, and have been now for three years, on a Motion of this particular sort.
If we could have had it on the lines of the Resolution that did not come on for discussion a few nights ago, that we
would support all reasonable schemes and methods, it would have been much better than to have given the idea to our Dominions that the only purpose we have in the British House of Commons is, whether our people want to go or not, to shovel them overseas. While I am in agreement with some of the ideas in the mind of my hon. Friend who moved it, I disagree so much with the wording of the Resolution, and feel so sorry for what may be its effects, that I hope he will withdraw it.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: I have had the advantage of listening to three speeches with which I am in accord. It has been my lot recently to visit a large number of His Majesty's Dominions and Colonies, and I hope no false impression may go abroad that the one remedy for the evils from which we are suffering is dumping people in the Dominions overseas. I have been in Australia, South Africa, and East Africa. We do not want to export from this country people whom the Colonies do not wish to receive.
Kenya, from which I have just come back, is not a place where a great number of Britons can be settled. I attended there a meeting of planters and others, and I said to them, "Why do you not buy British goods?" The reply which they made, and which I wrote in the "Times," was, "Certainly British goods for British people, but why should we have to pay for unnecessary restrictions and futile strikes?" My experience in the Colonies and other countries is that what we have to do first is to settle our own difficulties at home. From the East African Colonies we are going to receive certain products such as seisal, cotton and coffee, and we are not going to employ a large number of our people in East Africa, When we bring goods to this country from the Colonies we must send something out to them from this country. My experience is that the Colonies will not take goods from this country unless these can be produced on an economic basis. I found the whole place full of American motor cars, and there was scarcely an English motor car to be seen. The conclusion was that the English people are not producing cars that can be exchanged for the products of that country. So it is in all parts of the world.
It is too common a dictum in this country, "Why do you not send your
people overseas?" I regard the Empire as a place where adventurous spirits can go and start up a new existence, where they can join with others in developing the British Empire and strengthening it. I do not hold with those who look upon the various parts of the Empire as dumping grounds for those who are of no use at home. I think it is wrong that we should preach that doctrine and hold out to our fellow citizens that these Colonies are suitable for any such development, because I am certain they are not. Unless we are efficient at home, and active and productive, we are much less likely to be productive in the Colonies. Four or five years ago I went to Australia in the same ship with 700 emigrants, and I saw in a Sydney paper four weeks afterwards that 400 of them had come back by the same steamer because they were unfit for Colonial life. The kind of life there is only fit for the men who can adapt themselves to circumstances and who can "rough" it.
As far as East Africa is concerned, from which I have recently returned, there are enormous possibilities for the Government to assist developments of railways, roads, medical science and so on, but the practical use of this country is that in developing the Colonies we should encourage the natives to advance their state in the world's society, to want what civilisation produces, and they will then cultivate so that they may exchange goods with you. The text we have to preach to our people—and this is a non party question—is efficiency in our own country. When we all put our hands and brains to the work we have before us and do our best to increase production in this country, we shall find a corresponding increase in our Colonies which will produce what we want. I do want, as one who has travelled extensively in the Colonies, to try to lay the idea that you can export your inefficients there and that you can sell to the Colonies what is produced on a non-economic basis. You can sell them what they will buy in competition with all the world. They will always give you a preference in price, but I do not think they will give you a preference in goods which are un-economically produced. The relief of unemployment must commence at home and not at the other end.

Mr. HARDIE: I was surprised to-night at the Mover of this Motion speaking as he did. Reference was made to the count that took place. My reply is that the other side, who boast of their unanimity in regard to Imperial expansion, might have been present to hear one of their own Members doing his best. There was nothing said by the Mover or Seconder outside emigration. I am surprised that men who have experience of Great Britain should have made the speeches they did, because it only shows their lamentable ignorance of the conditions or that they do not want to face the conditions in Great Britain. Those who know something about the demands of other countries for labour know that those countries only demand the best skill they can get. Our experience on the Clyde is that highly-skilled brain and hand workers, as engineers, are always being sought after by other countries doing the same kind of work. But there are a great many factors that prevent that type of man being easily persuaded to go abroad. He has home associations, he likes him own country, and wants to stay there, and yet here we have men who are laying schemes, either blindly, or perhaps intentionally, to rob the British nation of its best producers. The last speaker mentioned the need for increased production. You can do more to increase production by keeping your best producers here than by sending them away.
Let me come to the question of land. We have heard to-night about the wonderful land to be found in Kenya—of course it is far away. We have heard about the wonderful land in other parts, but there was no mention of English soil or Scottish or Welsh soil. There was no mention of the fact that in this country, instead of the Government with its huge majority trying to get down to realities within our own island, we are always having pointed out to us Kenya or some other place that is far away. What are the facts? We have not yet settled down to organise the tilling of our own land. We are still in the hands of prehistoric ownership, and ownership that says to the whole nation, "You can only have a right to the land of Great Britain when you accept our conditions." Why did not any of those speaking in favour of this Motion try to link up Britain with the Greater Britain? Did
they not realise that, even if you take Scotland, there is one-fifth of that land under deer forest?

Lord APSLEY: Can you farm any of it?

Mr. HARDIE: Yes.

Lord APSLEY: Do you do it?

Mr. HARDIE: I am not a farmer, but I have farmer friends who will do it if they get the chance. Take the Government reports on the amount of pork that is being brought into this country. Instead of having deer rooting about your forests, you might have pigs. We have one-fifth of Scotland where pigs could be reared instead of deer. Why did you not say something about the land that is not cultivated and that ought to be cultivated? And the loaves that have to be brought in? Simply because you want to prevent the people from seeing this great land swindle. That is what I call it, and nothing else ! Why are people allowed to say, "This is good enough for the British working man to fight for," as he did during the War, and to call it his, but, "it is ours" when the War is over? The question was not touched upon in regard to the fitness of things at all. We had various encompassing statements but no detail. But you cannot take men born in industrial areas, just dump them down on agricultural land, and expect them to be successful. They have not got the knowledge requisite. Some people do not understand that farming is a skilled occupation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes; the remarks that came from the other side show that. It is a highly-skilled occupation.
If the Mover of the Motion had been serious to-night in his introduction of the subject, he would have dealt with the conditions at home and the relationship between industrial unemployment and vacant land. You can taper off from industrial to agricultural. All round our great cities and towns there are great belts of land, and we can begin by educating the people there, and tapering off that agricultural education from the industrial to the agricultural by making use of these belts of land. By taking the men engaged in industry and by getting them near to these places, by means of tram or omnibus facilities, they can be trained to become skilled agriculturists. But then you would have to provide land
for these men. That is where we do not face the question. Because hon. Members opposite know that when you get skilled industrialists made into agriculturists you have to find a place to put them, and you do not want to spoil your play or hunting ground. That is it! But that is the only way you can deal with this matter.
One thing might have been said in discussing this matter, if the discussion had been serious. You might have had regard to the protests of the farmers on the emigration scheme, and about the danger of taking away the men that we now have in agriculture. You are not even trying to preserve what you have in the way of skilled labour in agriculture. You are simply playing with the whole situation and showing that the personal interest dominates every movement on the other side. Why do you not come out openly and boldly and say, "Here is the land of Britain which is only partly tilled." "Here is the land of Britain where, if you cannot grow wheat you can grow potatoes." "Here is the land of Britain where we ought to grow, not deer, but pigs." There is not a single mention of that. Then there is the question of the minerals and the iron ore. I wonder how many Members of the Government understand or realise how much ore we have in the country still untouched? Do they realise the portions of Ayrshire which have been tapped for ore, and those that are still untouched owing to private interests? Do they realise that in the English coalfields the reason why shafts are sunk by the dozen where one might do is multiplicity of ownership? Another fact you might have dealt with in relation to this ore is that it ceases to pay when you get a certain distance from the shaft because of the increasing price of royalties. You need not shake your head: those are the facts.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I represent the particular district the hon. Member is referring to, so I do know something about it.

Mr. HARDIE: Well, you can come into the Debate afterwards, perhaps; but the facts and the charges I am speaking of are printed in the papers issued from your own Government's Department.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was asked the other day about addressing the Chair. Hon. Members should not use the word "you" in the House.

Mr. HARDIE: I am sorry about that. I will say the hon. Member, or the light hon. Member. I do not know whether he is the right hon. Member, but I will give him the benefit of it. I will conclude now, as there are so many others who desire to get into the Debate. To-night we are attempting to discuss this subject without getting down to the basis of it. The basis of emigration is our home conditions. It is our home conditions that suggest emigration to us. Unless we deal with the industrial situation of this country, we cannot even emigrate our people, because no other country will allow us to dump them upon them unless at the same time we are creating a market for what they are going to produce. Let us settle down to our own industry, let us settle down to our own markets, let us settle down to increasing the purchasing power of Europe, and we will not be talking about emigration.
But let me say this word of warning in conclusion. This emigration is a serious menace to returning prosperity in this country. The last speaker pointed out that when he was abroad he was told that the reason why certain people did not trade with this country was because of the fear of a strike. There is something more serious than that. If we allow all our best skilled hand and brain workers to leave the country they will say, "What is the use of trading with Britain? They have not got the skill now. We will go to the countries to which their best men have emigrated." We are seeking to deal with a subject of this vast importance by making a laughing-stock of it.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), and I agreed with much of what he said, but there was one point he did not make quite clear enough, I think, and it is worth enlarging upon. He spoke of the impossibility of expecting us not to look after our own unemployed ourselves, and said we ought to deal with the large body of unemployed that we have by settling people upon our own land. I quite agree that if it were possible we
ought to do that, but we must remember that at this time we have a million more people than we can find work for. If we look at statistics we find that this million is not the result of any mistakes we have made in this country, but solely a result of the war which fell upon us. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Well, that is an arguable point, and I would like to argue it.
Before the War we emigrated over 200,000 people every year, but during the War we were unable to emigrate anybody; and so at the end of the War we were left with a million people more than we could afford to look after. or could have expected to possess. Whether you like it or not, or whatever your politics may be, you have to realise that you have these 1,000,000 people to look after, and, making all the allowances of war losses you can, you still leave us with this solid surplus. We must not make this a partisan question, and I am not now trying to make a partisan point. But we have one million unemployed in this country, and we have to absorb them somehow. It is suggested that we should absorb them in England by altering our system of land tenure; but how can you afford to wait for that, when something has to be done at once? You cannot solve this problem by reconstructing the Highlands to-morrow, and the only way to meet it swiftly, is to send these people overseas. Already you have kept them here five years without work, under most distressing conditions, and living lives which no honest man ought to live, and in a way we need not discuss.
Why should you not take these men whom the Government have not succeeded in providing with employment and send them overseas where there are many opportunities for them to get on, and far more than you can find in this country? It is easy to get work and make money overseas because the migrants go to redeem open spaces and free tracts of land. Can anyone point to large tracts of land in this country which will absorb 1,000,000 people? We are no longer building railways in England at all, and I do not think there is 100 miles of railway built in this country in a year, whereas there are thousands of miles of railways building in the Dominions. Of course, we must
not lose sight of our obligations to those who remain in this country, but we have now to meet a pressing present need. We have over-development in England and under-development abroad, and it is our duty to send these men out where they can make most money and live in sunshine, instead of the degrading darkness under which they have dragged along for the last few years.
I only wish to raise one other point. An hon. Member has already spoken about the money spent upon migration. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is going to reply has done a great deal in regard to the question of migration, and whatever our views on this subject, we must realise that but for his efforts certain sums might not have been voted for migration overseas. But I would like to point out that that money has not been used and we have been told that it was impossible to get certain Governments to accept our migrants. Yet this fund has been voted and the Government acknowledge that they can-not use it overseas, by not in fact so using it. So that it is still available. Why not, therefore, use some of this money to take a number of the unemployed who are drawing the dole and employ them here upon agricultural work, and later send them abroad. We could first give them the necessary equipment and training on farms in England to make them welcome migrants, and then encourage them to take up land either in England or overseas, whichever they prefer. This to me seems one way of achieving an object which is at the bottom of all our hearts.
Lastly, I would like to say this: We try in this House to keep foreign affairs as a question apart from party politics, and it seems to me that emigration and migration, similarly, are a question which we should not treat sectionally, but as a whole. Very good work was done by the hon. Member for Rothwell in this connection, and I should like to see his party adequately represented upon the overseas Settlement Committee, so that all of us unitedly might try what we can do to solve a problem that really is leaving a canker on the soul of England. If, by a debate like this, which arose casually on the Resolution of an hon. Member, we achieve unity, it seems to me that we shall be doing something co-operatively for the old country which together we
pulled through the War, and something also to fulfil the Imperial destinies of our race.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. S. Benn) deserves the gratitude of the House for having initiated an interesting and useful discussion. I think that, apart from, possibly, a few rather jarring notes in one speech, it has not been a discussion on party lines, and I hope that the great fundamental question which has been touched upon to-night will always be kept out of the party atmosphere. Nor do I think there has ever been a real, fundamental difference in point of view. There has been, I think, a certain amount of mutual misunderstanding on one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) said something with which, in the main, I entirely agree. It would be a great mistake from every point of view if this problem of the better and healthier distribution of our people in the British Empire were regarded as simply a device for shovelling unemployed people out of this country and on to the Dominions. That would be wrong from the moral point of view.
We have no right to push, or even encourage, people who, under our existing industrial system in this country, have found themselves stranded and in difficulties, and who are, perhaps, no longer fitted for any other life than that for which they have been trained—we have no excuse if we push them out, only to find themselves no less stranded else-where. We have no right to shake off our responsibility in that way. Nor have we any right, from the point of view of our relationship with the Dominions, to try to send out to them people who are not really going to make a success of their life on the other side, or to be really valuable elements in the community which they join. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend's Motion was not intended in that sense. It is true that in the same sentence there is reference both to employment and to the unemployed, but I do not think he meant to imply that help towards the unemployment problem in this country and increase of employment can best be carried out by transferring people to the Dominions simply because they are unemployed here. That,
as I have said, would be a mistake; but, of course, it is undoubted that a better distribution of population in the Empire may do a great deal to help the whole economic situation, and in that sense to help the unemployment problem here.
There is also another aspect. Undoubtedly, a very large number of those who are unemployed to-day are still of such an age and such an adaptability of character that they can make good overseas, when they have not a special chance of making good here. And what is far more important than those who have spent their lives in one industry and are unemployed to-day, are those unemployed to-day in boyhood and likely to be unemployed in the future, or never to get into skilled employment, those who are still adaptive and could still, if they were given a new chance and a better environment, rise further in the scale of skill and in the standard of living overseas than they could at home. Surely we do not wish to deny them the opportunity.
The matter was very well summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson), when he said this was a matter of efficiency. In all these questions what we have to consider really, looking upon ourselves as citizens of a great Empire, is what is the most efficient distribution of our population for their own well-being, for the raising of the standard of living, for the strength of the nation and of the Empire. We have to consider that question of efficiency both from the point of view of a sound geographical distribution and also from the point of view of a sound distribution as between industries of different kinds—as between primary production, agricultural production, mining and the great secondary industries.
Taking, first of all, the question of geographical distribution, undoubtedly our present system, in which 45,000,000 or so of the most capable and efficient race in the world live huddled together largely in mean and sorry streets in a small island whose resources, though great originally as compared with those of many other countries, are still relatively small, while elsewhere there is at least a hundred times as much territory, at least a hundred times as much of natural resources, capable of maintaining an immense popu-
lation with a high standard of living, but with insufficient capital and human organising power. If the whole of this great territory were a single estate and belonged to a proprietor, or if it were a co-operative concern, one of the first things you would naturally think of would be how to distribute its working population most healthily, both from the point of view of efficiency and the production of health and of good social conditions.
From that point of view I think—I do not want to exaggerate the case—there is a great deal to be said for encouraging, by practical measures of all sorts, those who wish for an opportunity of a new life overseas by making it easy for them, making the passage easy and making reasonable arrangements for their reception at the other end. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) spoke of men who went out and came back because they were unfit. It by no means follows that all those men were unfit. Quite possibly a little bit of training might have given them a chance when they started at the other end. It is just possible that a little more care might have put them in touch with the right employer and given them a chance. They may have been able to do nothing more than walk about the streets of a great city, possibly applying to some trade which was already overcrowded. It is no wonder they went back, but it is not fair to say they were unfit. I think my hon. Friends will agree that anything we can do for better organisation and co-operation between the Governments to give a better chance to those who want to go overseas, and who are fit for it, is well worth while doing.
Besides efficiency, a further question is the better distribution of our population between industry and agriculture, between primary and secondary production. That lies, I believe, at the root of a great deal of our troubles to-day. I hope hon. Members opposite will not accuse us, because we do not always agree with them in the particular methods they would employ in order to bring about a better regulation and balance of our whole economic system, of being indifferent to these considerations and that we think the State has no responsibility whatever
to regulate private enterprise and development, so that the national economic life can be, on the whole, healthy. We do realise that the unregulated development of the last two or three generations has been as dangerous to our whole economic structure from the point of healthy employment and efficient production as the unregulated social and economic relations at home which at one time threatened to be fatal to the whole health and life of our people.
There is much common field and agreement between us on these matters, and even on the point to which the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) referred in an interesting suggestion, and to which the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) referred, namely, the development of agriculture in this country. I fully agree that there is a field to be explored there. If England is in one sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Britain!"]—I was saying England, because it is the most overcrowded in total population. I will take Great Britain. If Great Britain is from one point of view a very densely crowded country, it is also true that if you take out the urban districts, then as rural countries neither England nor Scotland are in fact very densely crowded. I believe there is a great field for strengthening the rural population of this country. I am by no means hostile to the suggestion which the hon. Member for Rothwell put forward. When we think of Empire settlement, we should not forget that this country is the heart of the Empire, and if we are prepared to train men for work on the land overseas, there is no reason why we should not train men for work on the land in this country. I in no sense differ from the broad aim which the hon. Member for Rothwell there indicated.
Whether in practice that can be best done by an enlargement of the Empire Settlement Act is another matter and one on which I am quite open to conviction. It is a matter which I will gladly look into with my hon. Friend. As the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) said, quite reasonably, if the money which we are prepared to devote year by year to Empire Settlement cannot all be absorbed by settlement in the Dominions, it is worth while considering whether we cannot do more for settlement at home. But in these matters we have to face
some of the hard economic facts of the situation. I am not going to argue with the hon. Member for Springburn whether land which carries so many deer could also carry pigs in the sense that the pigs could produce payable bacon.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, of the best.

Mr. AMERY: The real crux of any-agricultural development is that in present conditions agriculture is not a paying industry, and you have to be prepared if you want to see a great revival of agricultural population in this country to take far-reaching measures, which we have not been prepared to take, to make it a success. While all these problems are being considered, we must realise that there are great opportunities, not only for individuals in our Dominions overseas, but for strengthening the whole fabric of the Empire in this country. Therefore, I say to hon. Members opposite that if the Movers of this Motion are not particularly pressing for some of the things hon. Members are keenest on, it does not follow that their only aim is that contained in the Motion. It is because the Movers believe that what they have brought forward in this particular Motion is in itself a substantive and valuable contribution to the problem that they put it forward.
I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. S. Benn) would expect me to go on the spur of the moment into the details of his scheme, a very interesting scheme, for great private corporations working with a State guarantee in the development of settlement. I should like to see such a scheme worked out a good deal further. Certainly, hon. Members opposite know that under the very elastic provisions of the Empire Settlement Act we are prepared to co-operate with Governments and with private companies, whether companies working for profit, or purely for philanthropic ends, and with voluntary societies, and to encourage and foster any scheme which shows itself to be a practical contribution towards the problem, and, in the same way, if my hon. Friend's idea of corporations can be taken up and brought before the Overseas Settlement Committee in a practical form which would enable them to recommend it to the Government concerned, I
am sure that it would receive most practical sympathy from that Committee.
I do not think I need add anything specially to what I have said, but what I would put before the House is that without the exclusion of many of the other things and the task which lies before us here in this old country—and we have got to deal with it here and take account of the fact that the responsibility for dealing with the question of the wastage of our economic system lies with us in this House and in this country—still there is a very wide field in the development of our economic and national life in the Empire, and anything which can contribute to that does deserve the sympathetic attention and interest of this House.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I listened to the Mover of the Motion, and I would have liked to agree with him in the very laudable object he has set out in that Motion. Any means designed to provide remunerative employment for our people ought to claim the support of every Member in the House. But I was disappointed when my hon. Friend outlined his scheme, and he proceeded to tell us how this remunerative employment was to be provided, for he apparently forgot that Great Britain is a very big part of the Empire, and with all his political long-sightedness he forgot to look around him at home, when surveying the ends of the earth. I could not agree with him that unemployment and better opportunities for remunerative employment can be found on the plains and the prairies of Canada than can be found in this country, and with some experience of life in that Colony—for I worked there for two years—I am quite satisfied that with equal maintenance and provision of capital, a good deal more successful colonisation can be done in Great Britain than can be done in Canada. I know that every mail from Canada today brings back most harrowing details of unemployment.
I have received letters this year describing the terrible conditions under which people, fit and unfit, who were induced to go abroad, have to endure the privations of that colony. I would not attempt to condemn wholesale the policy of emigration. Canada will yet be a great country. But it is not a country where remunerative employment can be found for any large number of people at the
present time. We have poured people into Canada during the last 20 years. People who have been sent from here to Canada have found their way across the Border into the United States, because Canada does not provide them with opportunities for a decent livelihood. Picture the condition of an unemployed workman induced to go to Canada at this time of the year. Picture him occupying a shanty anywhere in Western Canada, where the snow covers the earth for five months of the winter. Picture the condition of that man without employment, and imagine the state of his mind. Then one can realise how great is the responsibility of Members of this House, whose statements are published and spread abroad, in creating the opinion that Utopia can be found anywhere outside this country.
The same remark applies to Australia and New Zealand. I read only a few days ago a statement made by one of the leading statesmen of New Zealand, who said that New Zealand would not accept settlers from England to occupy their Crown lands unless they came with £500 capital behind them. He said that at least £1,000 would be required to give a chance of creating a new home in that Colony. The same thing applies to Canada. Here I disagree with the Secretary for the Dominions, who said that there are a hundred chances in the Dominions for every one that there is at home There is not a single Dominion, no part of our Dominions, that gives such opportunities as Great Britain gives at the present time. Settled on the land, a man will get a much better living from either of the four countries of the United Kingdom than he will get in New Zealand or Australia or Canada. The most serious result of a discussion of this kind is that it may persuade people that the way out of unemployment and the hardships that 1,250,000 people now endure, is to be found by emigration en masse to another part of the world. I see that the hon. Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley), who recently went to Australia, wrote a very interesting account of his experience. The Noble Lord, it is true, has come back to this country looking quite well, and none the worse for his experience. But I am not quite so sure that he would have come back so satisfied with his experience
if he had not known at all times that he had something upon which to fall back. It may have provided the hon. Member with an interesting experience—one which I am pleased to note he shared with his wife—and it showed great courage and enterprise to undertake a first-hand examination of the problems of life in the Dominions—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [15TH FEBRUARY].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
 That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.'

Question again proposed.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We are now asked to turn our attention again to the Vote for Stationery and Printing which includes the provision of typewriters for Government offices. When this Vote was passing through Committee, a number of questions were put to the Financial Secretary regarding the origin of the typewriters used in Government offices, and as to whether these were of British origin or were brought from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman explained on that occasion, and in various replies to questions since, that most of the typewriters actually in use, have been the property of the Government for a number of years, and owing to the contraction of the work it was desirable to use up the old machines and not to buy any new machines at all for the present. Therefore, he said, there were very few British machines in use at the present time. I quite accept that explanation, and I only wish to say that when the time comes for buying new machines, I hope the testing of the British machines will be complete, and if British machines are found to be as good as foreign machines and if they can
be had at a reasonable price, that the Government will see their way to give some orders to the British houses.
But in his speech on the Committee stage of this Resolution the right hon. Gentleman used words of disparagement with regard to the British typewriting machines that I feel quite sure went further than he intended to go, and which, as a matter of fact, if unqualified, are likely to do considerable harm to British trade in these articles. One of these firms has recently executed an order of several hundred machines for the Swedish Government, and as that Government had the whole world from which to buy, I think it reasonable to suppose that British machines were able to hold their own in that case. I think if the right hon. Gentleman reads the verbatim report of his speech he will agree with me that it went beyond what he meant to say on this question, and I hope, in reply to me, he will be able to qualify his statement on that occasion.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to this matter, but the strongest expression of opinion that I used in that speech, as he will see if he looks at it, does not and was not intended to apply to typewriters. It is quite true that I said in regard to the nationality of certain labour-saving devices:
 I am afraid it is a fact that British workmanship has not produced as yet a very good article."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1926; col. 1602, Vol. 191.]
That was not intended to apply to typewriters at all but to quite a different class of labour-saving machines, to which I think I referred in another part of the speech. Notwithstanding that, I agree, after looking at the whole of the comments which I used, that I did go rather further than I intended and certainly further than I ought to have gone in regard to this matter. I really was dealing throughout the Debate upon this Vote with a state of things which is not quite up to date. As the hon. Member will recollect I told the House that the real reason why we have not a large number of British made machines at present, is because we had a very large stock at the end of the War and we have not yet worked off that stock. Of course at that time, it was impossible to get
British machinery of any sort because everything was turned on to a War basis, and we have been working off that old stock. I do not think I am entitled to say at the present moment that there is any very marked superiority—perhaps there is no superiority—of foreign machines over British. I said—and it has been rather challenged—that the requirements of the Government were rather peculiar. What I meant was this. One reason why at an earlier date, at all events, apart from the relative merits, foreign machines were bought in very large numbers was that it is very important for the Government, who have to buy large numbers of these machines, to send them to all parts of the world, very often to out of the way places and stations, and it is very important, if possible, to have machines whose makers send spare parts, standardised spare parts, to the different parts of the world so that it may be as easy as possible to do repairs.
A different state of affairs obtains in the City of London, where you may have a very good machine, and when it breaks down you can get it repaired by merely crossing the street, but it may be a very different thing in some of our African dependencies. But I am very glad to give the assurance that the hon. Member asks for with regard to the future—in fact, I think I have given it already. I have every reason to believe that an excellent British-made typewriter is now to be had on the market, a most excellent machine. I do not think it is necessary for me to attempt to say at this moment whether they are fully equal in all respects to foreign ones, or superior to foreign ones, because the Government as such is not in a position to buy a large number of machines and will not be for some time to come, but the Stationery Department have bought, as I said in answer to a question the other day, a certain number of British machines. We are testing them, and we shall continue to test them, and unless, which I do not anticipate, there were a really marked superiority in foreign-made articles, the House may rest perfectly assured that the British-made article will receive every preference to which it is entitled. I should like to say in this connection that, apart from these particular articles, the whole policy of the Stationery Office for years past has been to purchase almost entirely in the British market, and it is
only these labour-saving machines, I think, which can be pointed at with the reproach of foreign origin.

Mr. SCURR: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an excellent British made machine that may in future receive favourable consideration from the Government, but when he speaks of a British made machine, is British capital concerned in it, or is it owned by some foreign firm? After all, if these typewriters are simply manufactured here, and the profits of the industry are taken abroad, we might just as well go on as we are at present.

REPORT [23RD FEBRUARY].

Resolution reported.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

1."That a Supplementarysum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health and Unemployment Services, sundry Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, certain Expenses under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services."

CLASS III.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £182,775, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the
31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation."

CLASS I.

HOUSING SCHEMES.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 81st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Housing Schemes under the management of the Office of Works."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is this being given to the Ministry of Health for housing, and is it bringing up the question of alternative systems of housing?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir, there is no question of that kind. There are three main items, one in respect of salaries wages and allowances, there is another item for insurance stamps, and there is a third item in respect of unemployment schemes.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—{Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.